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 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 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 experienced care, treatment and support that met their needs and protected their rights.

Reasons for our judgement

People’s needs were assessed and care and treatment was planned and delivered in line with their individual care plan. We saw detailed care documents for people. These demonstrated that following assessment, the support that was required was documented. We spoke to people using the service who told us that they had given information about themselves and the support they required so staff knew what they needed. One person said, “They never rush you, they always have time for you”. All of the care documents we looked at had details of people’s life history. We spoke to staff who told us that they knew how to care for people by using the information in the care plan.

We observed a meeting which took place as new staff came on duty. The meeting was used to inform and update the staff coming on duty about any changes or any new areas of concern. This ensured that people received continuity of care.

We saw that the care documents were regularly updated to reflect the latest care requirements. The care documents were written from the individual’s point of view and had plenty of individualised information within them. We saw that daily records were written for every person which detailed information such as food intake and activities that people had undertaken. The provider delivered support which was planned and documented in care documents.

People were given opportunities to take part in activities in and outside of the service. We saw a timetable of activities and spoke to staff who explained how the activities were chosen. Some of the activities were chosen by the residents at meetings. Others were chosen by staff. On the day of our inspection we saw that a hairdresser and an aroma-therapist were attending to people. We also saw that a laptop had been placed in the lounge. Staff told us they were going to be help people send emails to friends and family. We saw in one of the residents meetings that all the residents had their own email address. The provider saw the benefit for people of offering a variety of activities so that they catered for most people.

The provider used the expertise of external agencies to offer additional support. We saw that all the people were registered with a local GP practice. District nurses provided specialist support when this was required and we saw that this was documented in the care plan and that their advice had been followed by staff. The provider understood their responsibility to access specialist support for people when required.

The Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards were only used when it was considered to be in the person’s best interest. We saw that mental capacity assessments were completed for people within the service. When we spoke to staff they demonstrated an understanding of mental capacity and what depriving people of there liberty meant. The provider understood people’s rights to make choices and not to be prevented from leaving the premises.

There were arrangements in place to deal with foreseeable emergencies. The provider had a fire policy which we had been sent to us. We saw documents of fire drills with attendee’s signatures. These had been undertaken on a regular basis. The provider had protected both people and staff from foreseeable emergencies.