You are here

Archived: Kingsmead Lodge

All reports

Inspection report

Date of Inspection: 11 September 2012
Date of Publication: 2 October 2012
Inspection Report published 2 October 2012 PDF | 46.24 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 11/09/2012 and talked to people who use 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.

The provider was meeting this standard.

User experience

We spoke with one person living at the home. They told us that Kingsmead Lodge was “home”

We spoke with two relatives who had no concerns about staff’s ability to maintain people’s dignity and privacy. They told us that they were consulted appropriately and were involved with decision making whenever it was necessary to do so.

Other evidence

People expressed their views and were involved in making decisions about their care and treatment.

We spoke with the manager and four staff members. We also spent time with people living at the home, observing their interaction with staff. We observed that staff were responsive to people’s needs and wishes and treated them with respect as individuals at all times.

We examined the care plans of four people. We found these to be personalised and clearly focused on people’s individual choices and preferences. All the care plans contained detailed information under the titles of ‘People in my life’, ‘My relationship circle’ and ‘What matters to me’.

We also observed instances of staff offering and delivering choices to people, for example in what food they would like to eat.

Peoples’ diversity, values and human rights were respected

We spoke with the activities co-ordinator and examined ‘social care’ notes which documented people’s social activities. We found evidence of a wide variety of activities on offer, including aromatherapy and reflexology with music therapy to be introduced in the near future. The home also had the use of a sensory room which was well-equipped.

Following our visit to the home we spoke with health care professionals who visit the home regularly. They told us they had no concerns about people’s privacy, dignity or choices provided by the home.