You are here

All reports

Inspection report

Date of Inspection: 11, 13 April 2011
Date of Publication: 17 June 2011
Inspection Report published 17 June 2011 PDF

Contents menu

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

Records lacked evidence to show that the views and opinions of people are respected and taken into consideration when developing their individual care and support plans.

User experience

We visited the home on the 11th April 2011. Whilst looking around the two units we saw what assistance was being offered by staff and how they interacted with people living at the home. We found that interactions were relaxed and respectful however there appeared to be little structure to people’s routine with people generally sat watching television or relaxing in their own rooms.

Other evidence

Prior to our visit to the home, we requested information from the provider. They told us that there were areas, which needed to be improved to ensure compliance in this outcome. This included the development of care records and residents meetings so that people were informed and consulted with about their care and events within the home.

During our visit we examined several care files. Information was not up to date, lacked detail and did not evidence any meaningful consultation with people about the care, treatment or support they require or how this was to be provided.

Some people were also in receipt of funding for 1-2-1 staff support for a specified number of hours each week. Agreements were based on the persons identified support needs to promote and enable them in further developing their daily living skills. Again information within the care records lacked any detail of these arrangements. Feedback from health and social care professionals supported this. We were told that placements had been agreed so that additional ‘therapeutic’ support could be provided however during reviews there was no evidence to support this was happening.

We were told by the provider that placements were currently under review to ensure their suitability. This was to make sure that people living at the home were able to be supported fully by the staff team. Where people’s physical or health care needs were greater than their mental health needs, consideration was being given to whether alternative placements needed to be sought. This was being done in consultation with relevant health and social care professionals.