You are here

Archived: Rydan Lodge Residential Home

All reports

Inspection report

Date of Inspection: 17, 18, 22 October 2013
Date of Publication: 15 March 2014
Inspection Report published 15 March 2014 PDF | 118.17 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)

Not met 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 looked at the personal care or treatment records of people who use the service, carried out a visit on 17 October 2013, 18 October 2013 and 22 October 2013, observed how people were being cared for and talked with people who use the service. We talked with carers and / or family members, talked with staff, reviewed information sent to us by commissioners of services and reviewed information sent to us by local groups of people in the community or voluntary sector. We talked with commissioners of services and talked with other authorities.

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 with us.

Our judgement

At Rydan Lodge residential home people’s diversity, values and human rights were not always respected.

Reasons for our judgement

We carried out this inspection on 17, 18 and 22 October 2013. This was a responsive inspection because we had received concerns about how people were treated at Rydan Lodge residential home and Rydan Care domiciliary care agency. We had also received reports that when staff had raised concerns they had not been responded to, that staff had not received proper training and had not been recruited appropriately.

At the time of our first inspection visit seven people lived at the home. One additional person was at the home on a short term respite basis when we visited on 22 October 2013. The domiciliary care agency, Rydan Care, operated from a building within the grounds of the home. The agency provided support to 70 people in their own homes. 35 of those people received personal care, such as assistance with washing and dressing.

One of the owners of Rydan Lodge was also the registered manager for the home and for Rydan Care. They are referred throughout this report as the registered manager. This meant they were responsible for the day to day management of the service.

We had received specific information that people were not treated with respect and had been shouted at by staff at Rydan Lodge. This information did not relate to the domiciliary care service.

During our inspection visits some care workers told us reluctantly that they had witnessed a person being spoken to disrespectfully by a staff member. They said that they had made the registered manager aware of this. We spoke with one person who lived at the home and asked them whether they were always treated kindly. They were reluctant to discuss this. They said that "most" staff were kind and spoke to them respectfully. They did not wish to say any more.

Many people who lived at Rydan Lodge were affected by dementia and were unable to tell us directly about their life there. We used our Short Observational Framework for Inspection (SOFI) to enable us to understand people's experiences of the care they received. During our observations we saw friendly, respectful interactions between people and care workers at the home. For example, we saw that people enjoyed a music activity with care workers. However we also witnessed some incidents where staff talked about people to other staff in front of them. For example we saw a member of staff come into the room and ask another staff member “Have they had their feet done?” without reference to the people themselves. We also saw examples of staff using inappropriate language with people, for example referring to people as a “good girl” when they had finished their cup of tea. Interactions such as these can undermine people’s sense of identity, dignity and well-being.

We found that there was not always a culture of respect at the home with regard to what was written about the people who lived there. For example, care records at the home frequently described people as "difficult". This did not demonstrate an understanding of the needs of people with dementia. It did not demonstrate that staff or management at the service understood people’s behaviours as a method of communication. We saw no guidance or strategies for staff on the management of behaviours that were potentially challenging. There was no mention of people's retained abilities or positive aspects of people's character. Staff memorandums written by the registered manager were not respectful in tone or content to either residents or staff. Inappropriate language was used in daily care records. One person had been recently described in the care records as "stroppy", and another as “lazy”.

When we visited people who used the domiciliary care service we found that they had a relaxed, friendly relationship with care workers. People told us that care workers were "friendly" and "have a laugh with me" and "treat me well".

We looked at care plans and daily records for six people who used the domiciliary care service. Written comments in those records were respectful