You are here

Archived: Crossways Residential Home

The provider of this service changed - see new profile

All reports

Inspection report

Date of Inspection: 15 May 2014
Date of Publication: 11 June 2014
Inspection Report published 11 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 15 May 2014, observed how people were being cared for and checked how people were cared for at each stage of their treatment and care. We talked with people who use the service, talked with carers and / or family members and talked with staff.

We used the Short Observational Framework for Inspection (SOFI). SOFI is a specific way of observing care to help us understand the experience of people who could not talk with us.

Our judgement

People’s views and experiences were not always taken into account in the way the service was provided and delivered in relation to their care.

Reasons for our judgement

Some people who used the service had dementia or were not able to talk to us so we spent time observing in the main lounge during the morning. We saw how people spent their time and this included looking at the support that was given to them by the staff.

During our observation, we saw people were served drinks on two occasions. There was only a choice of one drink and people were not asked how they would like this drink made, including whether they wanted sugar or milk. Everybody was served their drink in a purple plastic mug or a two handled beaker, and there were no other options available. We asked two people how they would prefer their drink and they told us they would prefer to drink from a mug. The care records included information that people wanted to drink from a mug, but we saw that people were not given a choice.

One person requested more milk in their drink and the staff member told them, "You can't have much milk in your drink, as it's not good for you." Later in the morning the same person asked for more milk in their drink and the staff member told them, "Oh alright, but you shouldn't have this." We checked the care records and found that it was recorded the person liked to have their drinks 'milky' and there was no information about why this should be limited. We discussed this with the provider and registered manager who agreed people should be able to make this choice.

We saw staff did not always consult with people about what was happening and what they wanted. For example, a window was opened without consulting people whether they were hot or cold. One person complained and the staff commented that it was warm and the window was left open. We also saw one member of staff push somebody nearer to the dining table without speaking with them. The person looked alarmed as they had not been made aware of what the member of staff was planning to do. This meant some care practices were not carried out in a caring way and did not show respect to some people who used the service.