You are here

Bricklehampton Hall Requires improvement

All reports

Inspection report

Date of Inspection: 11 March 2013
Date of Publication: 5 April 2013
Inspection Report published 5 April 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)

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 11 March 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 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, dignity and independence were respected. People’s views and experiences were taken into account in the way the service was provided and delivered in relation to their care.

Reasons for our judgement

People we spoke with told us that care workers were always mindful of privacy and dignity when they provided personal care. One person said: “They always explain what they are doing or are going to do”. We spoke with two care workers who showed an understanding of the importance of maintaining people's privacy and dignity. They were able to provide us with practical examples of how they protected people’s privacy and dignity while they supported them with personal care. For example, one care worker told us they always covered the person as much as possible and made sure all doors were closed. This meant the provider respected individual preferences for privacy and dignity.

During our inspection we saw people were engaged in activities. We saw people involved in a quiz and saw people who participated in a music and movement session. Four people we spoke with told us care workers encouraged them to continue to do as much for themselves as possible. One person we spoke with told us: “I was supported to help set up a knitting club. I had five new members join”. This person also told us they had recently took part in arts and crafts sessions and there were lots to do if you wanted to get involved.

We spoke with the diversional therapist who organised daily activities. They told us people were welcome to participate in activities and were encouraged to raise new ideas. They told us a recent event included a new food tasting menu session. We saw photographs that showed many people had been involved in sampling a new seasonal menu. We spoke with the chef who confirmed this had helped them plan a new menu with the knowledge that people supported the choices that would be provided.

The diversional therapist and the patient services manager told us they visited a limited number of people on a daily basis that were unable to leave their rooms. They told us they talked to them and asked them if there was anything they wanted. This meant the provider made sure people were involved and encouraged where possible.

People's diversity, values and human rights were respected. Personal information had been gathered from people when they came to live at the home such as hobbies, family background and life histories. This meant that people's diversity and preferences were included in the planning and delivery of their care and support.