You are here

All reports

Inspection report

Date of Inspection: 9 March 2013
Date of Publication: 18 April 2013
Inspection Report published 18 April 2013 PDF | 92.72 KB

People should get safe and appropriate care that meets their needs and supports their rights (outcome 4)

Not met this standard

We checked that people who use this service

  • Experience effective, safe and appropriate care, treatment and support that meets their needs and protects their rights.

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 9 March 2013, observed how people were being cared for and checked how people were cared for at each stage of their treatment and care. We talked with people who use the service and talked with staff.

Our judgement

People did not consistently experience care, treatment and support that met their needs and protected their rights.

Reasons for our judgement

During our inspection we spoke with four people who used the service about the care they were provided with. People told us they liked to live at Langholme and that the staff were kind and helpful. Additional comments made included “the staff are helpful and polite” and “there are things to do, sometimes I join in but I like to spend time quietly”.

We saw the activities coordinator spent time in the communal areas talking with people and helping them access drinks and supported them with activities. People were informed of the activities for the week with a daily activity planned and written information on each dining table. We saw that crafts, art, quiz’s, exercises and musical entertainment were planned for the week our inspection took place in. One person was registered blind. Their records showed they had a daily paper delivered each day but did not specify if they needed specific assistance with reading the paper. For example, spectacles, specific lighting or if someone was needed to read the news to them. This did not show consideration to their personal and specific preferences and needs.

We observed the care staff were kind and caring in their attitude to people who lived at Langholme. Staff were knowledgeable about people’s care needs during their conversations with us, during which they demonstrated an empathy towards those they cared for.

We reviewed the care plans of three people who used the service. Care plans are essential to plan and review the specific care needs of a person. They are a tool used to inform and direct staff about a person and their individual care needs. The care plans made reference to a person’s health and social care needs and provided staff with information on the action they had to take to meet the person’s identified care needs.

We saw documentation, known as skin bundles, had been implemented. These provided information and guidance for staff to ensure that people’s skin integrity was promoted and staff were clear of the action they needed to take to meet people’s skin care needs.

We saw risk assessments were in place regarding moving and handling, pressure relief, falls and nutrition. Risk assessments are a tool to identify any hazards and the action that staff must take to reduce the risk from the hazard. Specific equipment that people required to assist with moving and handling was identified within the risk assessment.

The care workers in the home completed daily records that showed the care provided to people who used the service and how they spent their day. These records were signed, dated, factual and legible. They demonstrated the choices people made during the day and identified that in the main, people’s likes, dislikes, preferences and choices were respected.

We saw that one daily record identified one person had been assisted to have a shower. The person’s care plan stated that the person liked to have a bath. The daily record stated that four members of staff had been required to help the person in the shower due to them being violent and verbally abusive. This did not ensure that the person’s preferences had been respected or their care needs met in accordance with the printed care plan. We discussed this with the registered manager who was aware of the incident and stated it was not an acceptable level of care. We did not see evidence of any action taken by the registered manager to ensure the person received appropriate care in the future.