You are here

All reports

Inspection report

Date of Inspection: 20 May 2014
Date of Publication: 24 June 2014
Inspection Report published 24 June 2014 PDF

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)

Not met 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 May 2014, 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, reviewed information given to us by the provider and reviewed information sent to us by other authorities.

Our judgement

People were not involved in decision making around how their care was delivered, and their choices, dignity and privacy was not respected. People were not provided with appropriate opportunities, encouragement and support to promote their autonomy, independence and community involvement.

Reasons for our judgement

People we spoke with were generally satisfied with the service provided. Three relatives we spoke with told us they felt welcomed and usually visited three or four times a week. One relative said: "The staff keep me well informed. My relative is always in their own clothes. We have never had anything to complain about." We saw that residents enjoyed conversations with each other and with staff at mealtimes. All the people we spoke with told us they were dressed in their own clothes and were encouraged to sit at the dining table for their lunch.

There were no planned activities on the day of our visit. We saw the majority of people spent much of the day watching television in the communal lounge, whilst others remained in their rooms. A person acting on a resident's behalf said: "They just sit all day and do not get enough exercise." One person who used the service told us: "I would like to have more to do." Another person said:" I would like to have a games area or at least some board games, but I don't think anyone has ever asked me." One staff member we spoke with said: "I would like to see them do more."

All of the people we spoke with told us they did not know where to access the information about the activities. The provider showed us a schedule of activities displayed in the entrance hall many of which related to personal care -visits from the hair dresser, manicurist, chiropodist and physiotherapist. A weekly music session and monthly visits from the chaplain were also advertised which people confirmed happened. There were no specific dates attached to the weekly, fortnightly, monthly or six weekly activities, or means of evaluating the benefits to people. We were told by managers that the schedule did not accurately reflect the current activities provided as four other activities listed were no longer happening. Staff and people told us there were no social outings and that trips away from the home were mainly relating to their medical appointments or trips out with family members.

The Registered Manager told us that people were "generally not interested" in activities, however we found no evidence that the views of people using the service, those acting on their behalf or staff were sought on a regular basis. The Registered Manager confirmed there were no formal mechanisms such as meetings, forums, or surveys in place to gather this information. We saw the results of the most recent resident survey (2012) stating an intention to develop and improve social activities. Staff and people we spoke with told us this had not happened, that planned activities were not available on a daily basis, and there was no longer a designated activities co-ordinator. This meant that people did not have appropriate opportunities, encouragement and support in relation to promoting their autonomy, independence and community involvement.

People did not express their views and were not involved in making decisions about their care and treatment. None of the people we spoke with could recall being asked for their views about their care or treatment or invited to a care plan review meeting. The Registered Manager told us there were no formal systems in place to ensure that this happened. This meant that people did not always have the opportunity to make informed choices about their care.