You are here

Archived: RNIB Wavertree House

The provider of this service changed - see new profile

All reports

Inspection report

Date of Inspection: 19, 27 February 2014
Date of Publication: 27 March 2014
Inspection Report published 27 March 2014 PDF

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 19 February 2014 and 27 February 2014, observed how people were being cared for and talked with people who use the service. We talked with staff.

Our judgement

People experienced Care, Treatment and Support that met their needs and protected their rights.

Reasons for our judgement

Care and Treatment was planned and delivered in a way that was intended to ensure people's safety and welfare.

Before a person joined the service, we saw that pre-admission assessments took place. The assistant manager told us, “People can self-refer and we work closely with the local authority. We will go and meet the person and understand what their care needs are and whether we can support them. We always encourage people to come and look round RNIB Wavertree House as well.” We found that the service operated a month’s trial period which provided people with time to establish whether RNIB Wavertree House was the right home for them. One person told us, “I stayed here for three days before I made a decision about living here; it gave me time to decide whether this was the right place.” This demonstrated that people were provided with sufficient time and information to make an informed decision about the service.

RNIB Wavertree House supported people experiencing partial sight loss, the blind and/or hearing loss. We examined eight care plans in detail. We found that care plans provided a detailed medical history and level of sensory impairment for the person which included relevant information on the level of visual and hearing loss. We saw that care plans included information on the person’s preferences for lighting. For example, we saw that one person preferred normal bulbs to higher watt bulbs. This meant that the service was taking into account the environmental and emotional needs of people.

Care plans were sufficiently detailed which enabled care staff to provide safe care to people. We saw that care plans were robust and comprehensive detailing information on people’s personal care needs, mobility, continence, nutrition, financial management and social and community. We found that care plans were written in first person account (written from the perspective of the person) and were meaningful to the person. For instance we saw that one person liked a shower every morning by a female care worker. This demonstrated that care and support was being delivered in a person centred way to meet the individual's needs.

We saw that assessments were supported by a range of risk assessments. Risk assessments included falls, showering unassisted, fainting, medication, nutrition and manual handling. We examined eight risk assessments as part of the delivery of care and treatment. We saw that risk assessments were person centred and a specific risk to that person. For example we saw that one person smoked. The assistant manager informed us that recently the person was found smoking in their room. We saw that the risk assessment stated the risk of harm if the person was to burn themselves and the preventive measures implemented to reduce the risk of harm. This meant that care and treatment was planned in a way that was intended to ensure people's safety, rights and welfare.

We looked at how the service managed when a person became unwell. We saw that the service worked with health and social care professionals. Care plans included evidence of multi-disciplinary notes from other people involved in the delivery of care, such as healthcare professionals. We saw that people were registered with the local General Practitioner (GP's) and had access to other healthcare professionals, including district nurses and dentists. For example we saw that the service had contacted the emergency out of hour’s dentist for one person. We found that people’s ends of life wishes were recorded and the service recorded people’s preferences for palliative care. For example we saw that one person wished to remain at RNIB Wavertree House if their health deteriorated and for a Rabbi to be present. This meant that service was taking into account the physical, religious and emotional needs of people.

We found that people who used the service were offered a wide range of activities. The service employed two dedicated activities co-ordinators and we saw th