You are here

All reports

Inspection report

Date of Inspection: 20 February 2013
Date of Publication: 16 March 2013
Inspection Report published 16 March 2013 PDF | 79.76 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 20 February 2013, observed how people were being cared for and talked with people who use the service. We talked with carers and / or family members, talked with staff and reviewed information we asked the provider to send to us.

We contacted comissioning for their opinions of the service.

Our judgement

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

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

On the day of the inspection we saw that a few people were having breakfast at 10am, we also saw that they were having it in various places such as the lounge, the dining room and in bedrooms. We asked the manager what time breakfast was served, we were told that it was when people wanted it. We saw in care documents that the time individuals wanted to eat their meals was recorded. When we spoke to people using the service one person said they liked to wake early and would have their breakfast when they wanted. They also said they preferred to eat in their room, but on occasion when they wanted, they would eat in the dining room.

We saw care documents in which a detailed pre-assessment was completed. This had detail of what individuals wanted as support from the service. There was information about the person’s likes and dislikes, their preferred name, language and religion including whether they are practicing or not. This meant that the provider recognised that each person was an individual and respected their choices.

The provider ensured that people’s privacy and dignity was respected. The service had a few rooms which were dual occupancy. We saw in rooms that screens were available. We spoke to one person who had a shared room, when asked about sharing, they told us that the staff always used the screen and closed the curtains at the window to protect their dignity and privacy. We requested and were sent the service’s policy for privacy and dignity. The provider demonstrated that it followed its own policy to ensure that people’s privacy and dignity was respected.

People’s diversity, values and human rights were respected. We saw that people were dressed appropriately for their gender and age. People wore their own clothes which they brought in with them. We saw that there were good storage arrangements within each room. We looked at seven bedrooms in the home, we saw that they had been personalised with people’s belongings. This demonstrated that the provider had supported people to express their individuality through their belongings and dress.

People’s opinions were sought and were involved in the running of the service. We saw minutes from residents meetings, which took place on a monthly basis. People were given opportunities to make suggestions about such things as the food they were served and when, what charities to support and what activities they wanted. When we spoke to family and visitors, they told us that they could attend relatives meetings and that they received the minutes from the residents meetings regularly. We were told by a member of staff and saw this in the meeting minutes that residents wanted to sponsor a puppy to be trained to support the blind. The person who was training the puppy had been to the home and delivered a presentation. People had been involved in determining and agreeing on support to be provided and people using the service were consulted to ensure their needs were being met.

People were supported and given the opportunity to engage with community. We saw in the residents meeting minutes an opportunity to go on a trip to the botanical gardens. We saw a leaflet with people’s names who wanted to attend. We also spoke to staff who confirmed they were encouraging people to attend. One resident told us that they went out most weeks with a relative. We saw in care documents activities that people enjoyed outside of the home regularly such as shopping and attending church. The provider recognised that interactions with the community can be an enjoyable activity for people.