You are here

Archived: Breach House

The provider of this service changed - see new profile

All reports

Inspection report

Date of Inspection: 28 September 2011
Date of Publication: 1 November 2011
Inspection Report published 1 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

Peoples’ views were considered and staff demonstrated that they respected and listened to the people they cared for.

User experience

People told us that they chose how they spent their day and that they enjoyed the food and the choices offered. They knew about their care and treatment and were happy that their needs were met. There were several communal areas for people to choose how they spent their time. Some people chose to stay in their rooms, the lounges, conservatory, the dining room or gardens. They said that staff were nice and helpful and looked after them well.

People were happy to show us their rooms and were able to tell us about what made their room personal to them. They told us they were able to have drinks regularly and staff would always get them a drink if they asked. There was also a drinks trolley that went around the home frequently.

We spoke to relatives who were able to tell us that where needed or required they were able to input into peoples care and treatment and help with personal choices. They told us they were always made to feel welcome when visiting.

Two people that we spoke to preferred to spend most of the day in their room and this suited them. The home had ensured that this was in their best interests and where able had obtained the views of relatives to see if this matched the person’s life history. Relatives asked where possible for staff to encourage more involvement in that person’s day to day routines. The provider was happy for this to happen, but was clear that they would respect the wishes of the person.

We saw that people were encouraged to be independent, make choices and were free to move around the home. We saw one person who had chosen not to use a walking aid. Their care plan showed the home had assessed the risks and recorded the appropriate actions for staff to take. We observed staff following this guidance when this person was walking.

The home used a mobile hairdresser that people could use, also the home was happy for people to use their own hairdresser and had facilitated this for one person. People told us that they had some regular visitors to the home, these included a musician and someone that organised bingo. Some people told us that they chose not to do these activities and would use the other lounge. They felt that the activities were enjoyed by many of the people living at the home.

Other evidence

The provider told us that they used a local doctor’s surgery, but people could choose their own doctors surgery. The provider did state that this was not always possible as a doctor would not travel or they used a local dispensing chemist.

The seating layout in the lounges had been altered, to offer smaller areas of seating. This was not liked by the people living at the home and therefore the chairs remained around the out side walls of the communal areas.

If someone required a quieter area to discuss personal matters about their care and treatment they were able to choose a private space. This included a treatment room, the conservatory as this was often a quieter area, their own room or the manager’s office. During our visit we observed that visitors and family members used the office to discuss areas of care about their relative.

We looked at two care plans which detailed the persons preferred daily routines and included some life and work history of the person.

People who lived there were able to express their views direct with the manager and staff or through a ‘Residents Forum’. Until recently this was a monthly meeting, but the people living at the home had chosen to reduce the number of meetings. There was now a lead ‘resident’ that talked to other people to gain their views and would pass on comments and concerns with their agreement.

The home had recently recruited an activity co-ordinator to facilitate further activities within the home, but the appointed person had declined the post. The provider told us they were looking to recruit to this post shortly.

We observed staff addressing people by their name, people appeared to be dressed in their own styles and staff were able to assist people in a timely manner. The rooms we saw were single sex accommodation and there were no shared rooms.