You are here

Archived: Dean Wood Manor

All reports

Inspection report

Date of Inspection: 12 August 2014
Date of Publication: 5 September 2014
Inspection Report published 05 September 2014 PDF | 89.8 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 12 August 2014, 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, talked with staff and reviewed information sent to us by commissioners of services. We talked with commissioners of services.

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

During our visit to Dean Wood Manor we were shown the home’s welcome pack, given out to potential users of the service and relatives. This contained information about services offered, meals, aims and objectives of the service and the complaints procedure which included contact telephone numbers.

We looked at care records for five people who used the service. We saw people's choices and preferences around issues such as where they wished to have their meals, were recorded. One person had expressed a wish to be cared for only by female carers and this was clearly recorded in their care plan. People’s end of life care wishes had been documented within the care files and, if they had not expressed any preferences in this area, this was also noted. There was a section within the files with personal information, evidencing people’s interests, backgrounds and daily routines.

We spoke with one person who used the service and three visitors. We asked if people were given a choice about when they wished to get up in the mornings and what time they wished to go to bed. All those we spoke with said this was a matter of choice for the people who used the service. One visitor told us, “My X is sometimes not up till late but is still given her breakfast – they (staff) don’t say you’ve missed it”.

We spoke with four staff members who told us they had received training in the subjects of dignity and dementia care. This was confirmed by the home’s training records. Staff were able to give examples of how they preserved the dignity and privacy of people who used the service when offering care. Examples included knocking on bedroom doors, speaking quietly and discreetly to people and offering care in the privacy of bedrooms and bathrooms with the doors closed.

We observed care being offered in a respectful way and saw people were asked for consent to any interventions prior to care being carried out. Staff told us if care was refused they would withdraw and offer again later, or ask another carer to administer the care if the person preferred someone else.

We looked at documentation of care plan reviews and saw that, although most people who used the service did not attend due to the nature of their conditions, relatives were usually present. The three visitors we spoke with told us they felt fully involved in the care planning and review process.

The five records we looked at contained documentation that referred to people’s mental capacity and decision making abilities. This was in accordance with The Mental Capacity Act (2005) (MCA) which sets out the legal requirements and guidance around how to ascertain people’s capacity to make particular decisions at certain times. There was also direction on how to assist someone in the decision making process. Each file we looked at included evidence that decisions were made in people’s best interests with the input of family or relevant professionals where appropriate.

We looked at minutes of relatives’ meetings, which were held on a regular basis at the home. Topics discussed included relatives’ experience of dementia, new staff appointments, abuse and the impact of abuse, care provision, activities and updates on the position of the home provider. This was another way of helping ensure relatives were fully involved in day to day life at the home.