You are here

All reports

Inspection report

Date of Inspection: 7 January 2013
Date of Publication: 9 February 2013
Inspection Report published 9 February 2013 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

We looked at the personal care or treatment records of people who use the service, carried out a visit on 7 January 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, talked with carers and / or family members and talked with staff.

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's privacy and dignity was not always respected and they were not always treated with consideration.

Reasons for our judgement

People’s privacy and dignity was not always maintained. We saw some people’s bedroom doors were closed when they were being assisted with personal care. However, we also observed a person being assisted with personal care with the bedroom and bathroom doors left open.

We spoke with four people who used the service. Three people told us that staff always knocked on their door before entering. One person told us that staff were polite and respectful. We observed staff knocking on doors before entering people’s rooms.

We observed a member of staff undertaking a medicine round in a communal area. We observed the member of staff administer a person’s topical medicine at a table in the communal area, whilst two other people were also sat at the table. There were also other people sat in the communal area. The member of staff did not offer to administer the medicine elsewhere or seek the person’s agreement that the medicine could be administered with other people in the room.

We used the Short Observational Framework for Inspection (SOFI). We observed staff in a communal area interacting with people. We saw acts undertaken and no verbal interaction was made by the staff. For example a person, who was asleep, was awoken by a member of staff putting a protective garment over them before the drinks were brought around. However, we also saw interactions where staff were polite. For example a member of staff offered refreshments to people in a friendly, respectful way.

People's independence was supported. Two people told us that they managed their own personal care needs and were independent, and another person told us that staff supported them to do as much as they could for themselves.

People were involved in making decisions about their care. We saw that people were offered choices, for example, people were asked if they would like to be involved in activities or not. One person told us they “can choose what to eat.” Staff told us that people were able to make choices including what they ate, when they get up in the morning, what to wear and where to sit.