You are here

Archived: Ayrshire House Good

The provider of this service changed - see new profile

All reports

Inspection report

Date of Inspection: 22 September 2011
Date of Publication: 2 November 2011
Inspection Report published 2 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)

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

Our judgement

People who used the service can be assured that their privacy and dignity was respected. There is a need for best interest assessments to be improved, to ensure that decisions made on behalf of people who use the service, are in line with current guidance.

User experience

People who used the service told us that they receive care in a way that was respectful of their privacy and dignity.

When we asked people about their care plans and reviews, we were told that they are involved as much or as little as they like. We observed that this information had been clearly recorded in the care files that we viewed.

Other evidence

Care files showed us that initial assessments of people's care needs, were being completed. These clearly recorded the needs and wishes of the people who use the service. There have been no new admissions into the service within the last 18 months.

Where people were coming into the service with the support of the local authority, we saw that the necessary documentation was in place.

We looked at a sample of three care files (which contained care plans) and found that these were the local authority generated care plans, which covered all areas of physical needs and associated risk assessments. The manager told us that there were plans in place to review care plan documentation, to ensure they are person centred.

We spoke with one person about their care file and saw that they had been involved in ‘testing’ the new documentation. They told us that they had been able to give feedback about what worked well and what needed editing.

Care files included documentation relating to using specialist services, such as speech and language therapists and occupational therapists, evaluation records and evidence of reviews and updates. We saw that some reviews were out of date; however appointments had been booked for reviews to take place with the person’s social worker or a representative from the local authority.

We saw staff encourage and support people to exercise choice and control when making everyday decisions.

We observed the care given by staff and found that this was a positive experience for people. We observed staff talking to people who used the service and giving consideration to their personal needs and wishes. Staff showed a clear interest in the person, asking after their welfare and reassuring them when needed.

From the care files that we looked at, we saw that Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) assessments had been carried out for people by the local authority.

We saw that best interest assessments had not been completed, however the manager was aware of the need to conduct these and had planned dates for these to be completed.

We saw that there was an information board for people who used the service, which gave details of how to contact an advocacy service for advice and support. Advocacy leaflets were also available in the main entrance.

The service had an equality and diversity policy in place. We saw from care files viewed that people’s needs and wishes were recorded. The records of activities that people took part in that we saw, showed us that people were supported to practice their religious beliefs.