You are here

Archived: South Lodge

All reports

Inspection report

Date of Inspection: 17 February 2012
Date of Publication: 14 March 2012
Inspection Report published 14 March 2012 PDF | 50.08 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 reviewed all the information we hold about this provider, carried out a visit on 17/02/2012 and observed how people were being cared for.

Our judgement

The provider is compliant with this outcome, but to maintain this we have suggested some improvements are made. People using the service are respected and involved in making decisions about their care and support. However the service needs to be clearer about the arrangements for covering staff costs when taking people out. This will help people using the service to be clear about what they need to pay for, and ensure they are not restricted in their choice of social activity and outing.

User experience

During our visit on 17 February 2012, people talked to us about some of the ways that they were involved in the running of the home. For example people told us that they took turns to help out with shopping, cooking and doing the house work.

Other evidence

During our visit, we spent time directly observing the support being provided to people living in the home, to help us determine what it is like for people living at South Lodge. We took into account the outcomes for people who use the service, people's levels of engagement and staff interactions. We observed some positive engagement between staff and people using the service. Staff communicated in a calm, friendly and respectful manner at all times, and people living in the home appeared to respond well as a result. One person asked to go out for a walk and this was arranged. One person was asked if they wanted to help prepare the evening meal but they declined, stating that they were too tired. This was respected by staff. People were then asked if they would like some music and about the type of music they would like to listen to.

Staff involved people using the service by encouraging them to carry out daily living tasks as independently as possible. For example people were observed making their own drinks, one person did their laundry and another wiped out their lunch box after returning from day care.

People using the service talked to us about some of the ways in which they were involved in the running of the home on a day to day basis. They told us that they decided what they want to eat each week, and that they took it in turns to prepare meals and carry out domestic tasks. People referred to a pictorial aid that had been developed to support them to know where they were going and what they were doing each day.

The manager spoke about plans to change the service from a care home to a supported living service in the future. A consultation process was underway and an independent advocacy agency had been visiting the home to talk with people about the proposed changes. People we spoke with during our visit confirmed that they were aware of the situation, and discussed some of the ways that this might affect them as individuals and as a group.

We spoke with the manager about another organisational change which meant that staff costs for meals were no longer being funded by the service. Staff that we spoke with confirmed that it was their understanding that there was no available budget to cover staff costs when taking people out - for any type of activity - and that they would need to cover their own costs, or opt for no cost options. The manager stated that there may be occasions when people using the service might be required to contribute financially towards staff costs for outings and holidays. Information to say what people using the service needed to pay for in respect of the service they received had been developed, but this needed updating to make clear the financial arrangements and expectations on them, in respect of staff costs for all types of social outings and activities.

The manager was clear about the process for making decisions in the best interests of people who did not have the capacity to make decisions.