You are here

Archived: Nelson Mandela House

All reports

Inspection report

Date of Inspection: 7 January 2014
Date of Publication: 13 March 2014
Inspection Report published 13 March 2014 PDF | 82.91 KB

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 7 January 2014, checked how people were cared for at each stage of their treatment and care and talked with people who use the service. We talked with carers and / or family members and talked with staff.

Our judgement

People’s privacy, dignity and independence were respected.

Reasons for our judgement

People we spoke with told us staff respected their dignity and privacy. One person said, “Staff are wonderful and they do respect my dignity and privacy”. Another person said, “I go to my room when I want”. Staff we spoke with told us they never entered anyone’s room without checking they were allowed to go in first. One member of staff said, “When I am supporting anyone with personal care I always leave the room or cover them over as part of respecting their dignity”. We spoke to the manager who told us that the majority of the people that used the service were there on a short stay basis and would eventually go back to their own homes. We were not able to distinguish any difference between people on a short stay basis or people living within the home permanently in the way their needs were met. This meant people could be confident that their dignity and privacy would be respected in the way their needs were met regardless of their length of stay.

People were supported in promoting their independence and community involvement. We observed people’s independence being promoted by staff. People were being encouraged to do as much as they wanted. One person said, “Staff only support me when I need help”. Another person said, “When I am well I go out of the home most days to the shops or to the pub with my friend”. Staff we spoke with were able to explain how people’s independence was supported. Records showed some people who were in the home as part of a short stay arrangement had clear goals to achieve, with staff supporting them to be as independent as possible for when they went back home. This meant that people were able to live their lives as independently as they were able to.

We observed people making choices and decisions about their daily living needs. We saw staff promoting people’s choices by asking people whether they wanted hot or cold drinks, if they wanted to go outside or even go to their rooms. Records showed that people’s preferences were recorded for going to bed and getting up in the morning. One person wanted to practice their religion and arrangements were put in place so the local priest could visit the home regularly. We saw people wearing clothing that suited their age group. We saw staff treating people respectfully. This meant that people were able to live their lives how they wanted and even go out when it suited them.