You are here

Archived: Innisfree Rest Home

All reports

Inspection report

Date of Inspection: 21 September 2012
Date of Publication: 22 October 2012
Inspection Report - DN published 22 October 2012 PDF | 59.69 KB


Inspection carried out on 21 September 2012

During a routine inspection

We visited Innisfree Residential Home unannounced on 21 September 2012. There were 14 people living at Innisfree. Most people using the service were able to tell us about their experiences. We spoke with nine people living at the home and three relatives/visitors. We also spoke with the manager, cook and three care workers. We spent time observing care delivery in the communal areas and looked at all areas of the home. We also looked at a wide range of records, including care files, risk assessments, audits, staff training and rota, menus and complaints.

Staff promoted people’s independence. When we arrived people were going about their day as they wished. Some people were relaxing in the lounge or in their rooms. The atmosphere was calm and staff did not appear to be rushed.

All the people we spoke to living at the home were positive about their experience with comments such as “the staff are lovely and gentle” and “this is a good place to be”. One relative said that they were told by the manager that, “as this was now their relative’s home we should visit as often as we like and treat it like her home. We are always made to feel very welcome”. Another visitor said, “We are offered a drink as soon as we arrive and find the staff very welcoming”.

We saw that the home focussed on people's choice about how they wanted to live their

lives in a person centred way. Staff were aware of people's likes and preferences and there was good communication between the staff and people living there. Staff were well trained and knowledgeable about people's needs and how to meet them. However, we saw that two of the four care records that we looked at were not fully detailed to inform staff how to meet people’s needs. This meant that recommendations made by external health professionals were not clear in the care plans and staff were not always following them, which put people at risk of not having their needs met.