You are here

Archived: Nelson Mandela House

All reports

Inspection report

Date of Inspection: 7 August 2014
Date of Publication: 4 September 2014
Inspection Report published 04 September 2014 PDF | 84.17 KB

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

Meeting 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 7 August 2014, observed how people were being cared for and talked with people who use the service. We talked with carers and / or family members and talked with staff.

Our judgement

Care and treatment was planned and delivered in a way that was intended to ensure people's safety and welfare.

Reasons for our judgement

People’s needs were assessed. The registered manager explained that the service offered short stay and emergency places. In addition to this the service had some people who had lived at the home for some years. New assessment forms had been developed. This was to enable the service to assess people’s needs for short stay and emergency placement. We were not able to see any of these completed assessments on the day of the inspection as they were only just being introduced. Assessments for people who had been at the home for some years, had been archived. The service also used assessments completed by social workers. We saw that the information from the assessments had been used to form the basis of the care plans, which showed the staff how to care for each person. This ensured that people's needs were met.

Care was delivered in line with people's individual care plans. The care plans contained details of both people's needs and preferences. For example, in one person's care records we saw instructions for staff to ensure a jug of water or juice was in the person’s room. Another care record instructed staff to ensure the person used a modular cushion to help with pressure relief. People we spoke with confirmed their privacy and dignity were respected. One person said, “The staff are pretty good, they always knock my door and they respond quickly when I call the buzzer.” Staff we spoke with were knowledgeable of people's individual needs and preferences. This meant that people received care as they wished and on an individualised basis.

We did not see any mental capacity assessments in the records we sampled. The registered manager told us this was because the people had capacity to make their own decisions. Not all staff had received training on the Mental Capacity Act 2005. The registered manager showed us some training material for the purpose of training staff in this area. They told us staff would be completing this soon. This is legislation that protects people who are not able to make decisions for themselves.

People were supported to have their health needs met. We saw that people were supported to attend health appointments. This was confirmed by people we spoke with. A district nurse had identified that one person required a fasting blood test. The service supported the person with this. We saw that designated diet and fluid monitoring charts had been replaced with a new daily journal. We found this made it difficult to see a person’s diet and fluid intake at a glance. People were weighed regularly. However we were not always able to see why the frequency of weighing people had changed. We discussed this with the registered manager who told us they would ensure the reason for any changes was recorded on the form and was part of the monthly summary.

Care and treatment was planned and delivered in a way that was intended to ensure people's safety and welfare. We saw copies of individual risk assessments for things such as manual handling and medication. Where risks were identified control measures were in place to reduce the risks. For example, only staff that had received training in medication were allowed to support people with medication and all staff were trained in the use of moving and handling equipment. This meant that people's safety was maintained.

There were arrangements in place to deal with foreseeable emergencies. We saw that fire procedures were in place. Fire alarms were tested weekly. This was confirmed by people we spoke with. Current information was maintained of people who lived at the home and the support they would require in the event of an evacuation. This meant that systems were in place to protect people in the event of a fire.

People who used services were only deprived of their liberty when this had been authorised by the Court of Protection, or by a Supervisory Body under Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) legislation. This is part of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and is used to