You are here

Archived: St Martins Residential Care Limited

All reports

Inspection report

Date of Inspection: 14 September 2011
Date of Publication: 4 November 2011
Inspection Report published 4 November 2011 PDF

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

Our judgement

Overall we found that St Martin’s was meeting this essential outcome.

People who use the home are treated with dignity and respect.

User experience

Most people living at St Martins have varying levels of dementia and different communication needs. We were therefore unable to fully understand people’s specific issues.

Other evidence

During our visit people looked well groomed and cared for. The home had hairdressing facilities and people had access to the hairdresser who visited weekly.

Staff that we saw working with people showed through their actions, in their conversations and in their discussions with us, empathy towards the people they cared for. One staff member with whom we spoke with told us “This is the last home for people and I want them to be happy here and I will do everything in my power to help them to be comfortable and happy.”

We saw staff treating people with respect and seeking their agreement before providing any support or assistance. We saw that people’s privacy and dignity was upheld and where people received assistance with personal care, this was undertaken in the privacy of their own room or bathroom with the door shut. We saw staff knocked on people’s doors before entering and used the term of address favoured by the individual person.

During the afternoon we observed one staff member taking time to ensure that people made a choice over what type of hot drink to have and whether they would like a biscuit, sandwich or cake. They took time assisting someone to drink and eat in an unhurried way and cleaned the person’s mouth with a serviette when they were finished, maintaining their dignity.

It was disappointing to see during the mealtime that some practices detracted from the good practices otherwise seen promoting people’s dignity. These were the placing of plastic aprons on people who had difficulty in eating by themselves and staff wearing plastic aprons and gloves whilst serving meals and assisting people to eat. During discussion with the manager about these issues she agreed that staff wearing plastic aprons and gloves was over cautious in regard to health and safety/infection control precautions and conflicted with promoting dignity. The manager told us that this would be addressed and that alternative steps would be taken for those people who may spill food down them such as the provision of napkins and/or a change of clothing after they had finished their meal.

We saw the manager take time and give information and reassurance to a family member who was concerned about their relative and their adjustment to the home following their recent admission.

Another family member with whom we spoke told us that they looked around several homes prior to their relative’s admission and they chose St Martins because it “just felt right” and the manager and staff were very welcoming and helpful.

The local advocacy service was advertised in the main entrance hall and the manager told us that advocacy services were sought for people using the service as and when they were required.