You are here

Archived: Penrose

All reports

Inspection report

Date of Inspection: 17 May 2012
Date of Publication: 15 June 2012
Inspection Report published 15 June 2012 PDF | 45.02 KB

People should be treated with respect, involved in discussions about their care and treatment and able to influence how the service is run (outcome 1)

Meeting this standard

We checked that people who use this service

  • Understand the care, treatment and support choices available to them.
  • Can express their views, so far as they are able to do so, and are involved in making decisions about their care, treatment and support.
  • Have their privacy, dignity and independence respected.
  • Have their views and experiences taken into account in the way the service is provided and delivered.

How this check was done

We reviewed all the information we hold about this provider, carried out a visit on 17/05/2012, observed how people were being cared for, talked to staff and talked to people who use services.

Our judgement

People's privacy, dignity and independence were respected. People's views and experiences were taken into account in the way the service was provided and delivered in relation to their care.

The provider was meeting this standard.

User experience

We observed two people who used the service. We used the Short Observational Framework for Inspection (SOFI). SOFI is a specific way of observing care to help us understand the experience of people who could not talk to us.

Staff used signs to ask people what they wanted for lunch. Staff were respectful and supportive in enabling people to participate in activities during our visit.

Throughout our visit the member of staff on duty was attentive to people, chatted with them and encouraged them to make simple choices about activities they did. For example after lunch everyone joined in a musical activity. Each person was encouraged to choose an instrument and participate.

People were able to choose the filling they had in their sandwich, the dessert they wanted and the drink they preferred. The member of staff sat with everybody and ate their lunch as well. The meal was relaxed and social.

One person had been working on a puzzle at the table and decided to sit in a chair and take a nap.

Other evidence

We looked at the care records for two of the three people who lived at the home. Each of the care plans we looked at detailed the person's preferences throughout the day and at the weekend, including when they liked to get up.

Staff encouraged people to be involved in daily living. For example people were encouraged to help with making snacks and drinks and clearing away plates after lunch.

We could see from the yearly report completed by the provider that people were asked their views about the home and activities. The report evidenced that their views were taken into account when considering activities they enjoyed.

Where people had limited capacity to understand decisions about their support best interest assessments and decisions had been made and were recorded. For example where one person had difficulty understanding the need for an annual flu injection a decision had been made in their best interests. This took into account their physical health. The decision was made with people who knew the person well both from the home and health care professionals.