You are here

Keychange Charity Rose Lawn Care Home Outstanding

All reports

Inspection report

Date of Inspection: 19 February 2013
Date of Publication: 4 April 2013
Inspection Report published 4 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 19 February 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, 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 who used the service understood the care and treatment choices available to them. We spoke with six people living at Rose Lawn and four relatives to find out if they were satisfied with the care and services they received. All spoke very positively about the registered manager and staff. Comments included “The staff are so kind and prompt to help, they are always so good and supportive” and “I’m so impressed, every time we visit it is so wonderful.”

They told us the registered manager and staff regularly spoke with them to make sure they were comfortable, in good health, and had everything they needed. For example, during the inspection the conservatory was made in to a private dining area to allow one person living at the home to have lunch with relatives who had travelled some distance to visit.

People expressed their views and were involved in making decisions about their care and treatment. We looked at four care plans and saw evidence of how people had been consulted and involved in drawing up their own care plan if they were able. There was information about the choices and preferences people had made regarding their daily routines and care needs. For example, “X finds it difficult to put their clothes on their bottom half but can manage the rest”. One care plan detailed how a decision about using a pressure mat to minimise falls had been discussed with the person concerned and this person also confirmed this to us.

We saw from the staff meeting minutes staff had been praised for completing people’s life histories in peoples care plans that showed that staff had involved people and their families in this process. Staff had obtained detailed information that promoted discussion and personalised care for people. Staff had been praised at staff meetings about the quality of information obtained about people’s life histories. This information was used effectively in people’s care plans to ensure people’s choices and wishes were listened to and acted upon.

We spent time in the communal areas at Rose Lawn and saw that staff had time to sit with people for a chat or talk to relatives. Care plans then included details of family/friends visits and discussions. One relative told us that it was “such a relief to find a good home”. People were treated with care and respect by staff, such as informing people about what they were going to do and knocking on doors before entering and people were not being rushed. Everyone living at the home had been assisted to get up at a time that they chose and no-one told us that they had had to wait for assistance. The home had a call bell monitoring system and we saw that this was audited or shown to people to reassure them that staff had not been too long in responding

Care plans now included details of individual’s preferred activities and whether they were engaging in them to support their wellbeing. For example, one care plan detailed that someone had ordered a specific newspaper and they liked it to be in their room in time for breakfast, which we saw happening.

We looked at how the kitchen staff knew what people living at the home liked to eat. There was a list of people’s dietary needs and a notice board where information such as “ask what X wants for breakfast daily as they like different things” and “X likes their breakfast as early as possible”. Further information included who did not like pasta or curry etc. This ensured that people were able to choose what they wanted to eat and was confirmed by people we spoke to.

We looked at pre-assessments for people before they moved into the home. These were now detailed about the person’s needs. The registered manager told us that they also took in to account how a new admission would affect people already living at the home and the skill mix of staff. This ensured that the service could be sure that they could meet people’s needs before they moved in. For example, we were told about a situation where a new admission had regre