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

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 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

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

Reasons for our judgement

We were shows around the home which was clean and odour free. People who used the service were well presented and appropriately dressed and we saw people being offered care in a polite and friendly manner. Choices were offered where appropriate, for example, there was a choice of cakes with afternoon tea, and carers ensured people understood the choices and were assisted to make their preferences known.

Bedroom doors were painted in different colours to help people who used the service identify their own room. All bathroom doors were painted green to assist people to recognise these and there was signage to assist with orientation around the building. The main corridor circled the building and people could walk around safely if they wished to do so.

We looked at a recent home development plan which had highlighted the need for more dementia friendly materials on the walls of the home. We saw this had begun to be addressed and there were some stencils and pictures on the walls of the corridors and the entrance way. People’s rooms had been personalised with their own belongings.

The five care records we looked at included a significant amount of health and personal information. Care needs were clearly outlined and risk assessments were relevant and up to date. There were monitoring charts where a particular need had been identified, for example, where there had been any significant weight loss or the person was at high risk of falls. The monitoring data was complete and up to date in the records we looked at. Relevant professionals were involved with people’s care where that need had been identified, for example Speech and Language Therapy (SALT).

We were shown menus which were on a four week rolling programme. We saw the meals were varied and there were choices at each meal. Any special or fortified diets were recorded in the care plans and food and fluid intake charts completed where required. We saw dietetic services were accessed for those who needed the service.

Some people who used the service displayed behaviour that challenged. We saw within peoples care records that this was addressed by some people having behaviour charts, one to one care and/or regular observations. We spoke with staff members about this and they demonstrated a good understanding of how to deal with these issues. They had undertaken training in challenging behaviour, which was confirmed by training records, and were able to give examples of techniques used such as distraction to try to diffuse difficult situations.

Within each care record there was a Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards check list, which had been completed to ascertain whether an authorisation was required. Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) authorisations are sought when a person needs to be deprived of their liberty in their own best interests. This can be due to a lack of insight into their condition or the risks involved in the event of the individual leaving the home alone.

At the time of the inspection there were five people who were subject to DoLS. We spoke with four staff members and they confirmed they had undertaken DoLS training. They demonstrated a good understanding of the issue and the need for the least restrictive measures to be in place to ensure people’s safety whilst preserving their human rights.

We looked at the home’s training records which showed staff had completed mandatory training, such as fire safety, health and safety, moving and handling, infection control and safeguarding. All training was refreshed on an annual basis and the system generated a reminder when any training was due to be completed.

There was a hairdresser who attended the home on a weekly basis. We were told the activities coordinator had left the service and this post had been advertised. In the meantime staff were endeavouring to offer some activities, such as ball games, bingo and karaoke. We saw that there was a regular entertainer at the home and a church choir atte