You are here

Archived: Holmwood Residential Home

The provider of this service changed - see new profile

All reports

Inspection report

Date of Inspection: 17 January 2013
Date of Publication: 10 April 2013
Inspection Report published 10 April 2013 PDF | 79.32 KB

Food and drink should meet people's individual dietary needs (outcome 5)

Meeting this standard

We checked that people who use this service

  • Are supported to have adequate nutrition and hydration.

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 January 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 and talked with stakeholders.

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

People were protected from the risks of inadequate nutrition and dehydration

Reasons for our judgement

People were provided with a balanced and healthy diet that met their dietary needs, wishes and preferences.

People who used the service told us that they were able to choose what they wanted to eat. They said that they could choose alternatives if they did not want the meal that was on the menu. One person who used the service told us, “The food is always good here and there’s plenty of it.”

We observed staff over the lunchtime period as they supported people to eat their meal. The food presented was nutritious and well presented. People were offered a range of drinks according to their choice. Adapted cutlery and crockery was provided to enable people to eat independently. We saw staff sat beside people supporting them to eat their meal at a pace that suited them and talked with them appropriately. This meant that people who needed support with eating their meals maintained their dignity.

We spoke with the cook who showed us records to evidence that people with specific dietary needs such as diabetes and those at risk of malnutrition had their meals planned according to their assessed care and support needs.

We saw from residents meeting minutes and annual surveys that the views of people who used the service were consulted in the planning of menus.

We looked at the care records of four people. Care plans viewed showed that people who used the service were assessed for any risk of malnutrition using the malnutrition universal screening tool (MUST). We saw that people who had been assessed as high risk from malnutrition were weighed weekly and provided with fortified food. Discussions with care staff showed us that staff understood the action they would take where any risk of poor nutrition was identified. This meant that people who used this service had the support where necessary to enable them to eat and drink sufficient amounts for their needs.