You are here

All reports

Inspection report

Date of Inspection: 24 June 2014
Date of Publication: 19 July 2014
Inspection Report published 19 July 2014 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)

Meeting 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 24 June 2014, observed how people were being cared for and talked with people who use the service. We talked with staff.

Our judgement

People’s privacy, dignity and independence were respected.

Reasons for our judgement

During the inspection, we observed staff interacting with the people who used the service in a very positive way, encouraging them to communicate their views and supporting them sensitively. Staff respected people’s privacy by knocking on their bedroom door before entering the room and closing the door and curtains whilst attending to their personal needs. The staff we talked with told us they checked with people before providing care and support and described the ways in which they protected people’s privacy and dignity during everyday activities. We saw records that indicated all staff had attended a training course on Dignity in Care. This meant that steps were taken to promote the dignity of people receiving care.

Some of the people who used the service had communication problems and found it difficult to express their views but they were clearly comfortable and relaxed in their surroundings and with the staff caring for them. They showed us photos of events they had taken part in and were enthusiastic about their hobbies and activities.

Staff told us they encouraged people to be as independent as possible and to engage in activities in the local community. This was evident from the people themselves who told us of a wide variety of activities they were engaged in. Most of them had undertaken courses at the community college and some were involved in local charities.

People who used the service told us their support plans had been discussed with them and were reviewed regularly. We saw they had signed or marked the plans to indicate their agreement and involvement. We saw the plans contained pictures of the person and the activities they had engaged in. There was also a record of their major achievements and copies of certificates from courses they had attended or awards they had been given. The manager told us they had done this to encourage people to look at their support plans and become more involved in decisions about their care. This meant people were encouraged to understand their care and express their views.

People’s wishes in relation to their care at the end of their life had been discussed with them and recorded in their support plans to ensure they could be respected when the time came.

All the bedrooms were single occupancy and had en-suite facilities. They were decorated individually according to people’s preferences and interests. One person had recently chosen their new bedroom furniture and decorations and there were lots of examples of people’s interests and hobbies within their rooms. This meant people were offered choice and treated as individuals.

There was information on the notice board in the lounge about advocacy services and what an advocate is, in easy read format. There were also contact details for the advocacy service. There was useful pictorial information for people who used the service about abuse and the types of abuse. The people we talked with were able to identify what they would do, and how they would seek help if they had concerns. This meant people had the information they needed to enable them to access independent support if they needed it.

Where people lacked the ability to make decisions about specific aspects of their care and support, mental capacity assessments had been carried out. There was excellent documentation related to this and of how decisions had been made in the best interests of the person involved. This meant the rights of the people who used the service were protected and where people lacked the ability to give informed consent, decisions were made in their best interests.

We saw the Service User Guide which included useful information about the facilities and services available. This meant information was provided for people to facilitate choice.