You are here

Archived: Harpers Villas Care Centre

All reports

Inspection report

Date of Inspection: 22 December 2011
Date of Publication: 17 February 2012
Inspection Report published 17 February 2012 PDF

People should get safe and appropriate care that meets their needs and supports their rights (outcome 4)

Not met 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

Our judgement

People may not always receive support that meets all of their individual care and welfare needs.

User experience

People told us that they were happy living at the home, and relatives told us they were happy with the care their relative received. One relative told us “They let me know if mom is unwell”.

Records showed that people were seen by external healthcare professionals including the GP, district nurse, chiropodist, dentist and optician as they needed to. Staff spoken to were able to tell us about people's individual needs and a visiting healthcare professional said “They identify about appropriate things and normally tell us in a timely manner, they know the residents and know their needs”. This means that people should be seen for external professional advice as required.

We looked at the care files for three people who live at the home. We found that care plans contained clear information for staff to follow about how they should assist people to meet their needs. Risk assessments were completed for individual risks, such as moving and handling, risk of sore skin and falls. Care plans were detailed with individual likes and dislikes so that people should receive care in a way that they prefer. We saw that the plans gave staff good details to follow, for example if people with diabetes had a high or low blood sugar, there were instructions to tell staff what to do. People’s weight was monitored to ensure that people received nutritional support if required.

On the ground floor staff told us that people’s bedroom doors were locked to prevent other people wandering into their rooms and taking things out. Staff told us that there were two people living at the home that did this, however one of the people we were told could also go upstairs. The rooms upstairs were not locked which meant that the person could go into these rooms. We saw that risk assessments were completed with people or their families about if they could and wanted to have their own key to their room. We saw that one person’s family had requested that their relative’s room was locked. A visitor at the home on the day of the visit said “Moms room is not locked I want it open when I come as I bring her things that need to go in there”. Whilst this shows that people have some choices, some people living at the home have dementia and they may not be able to ask staff to open their rooms for them.

We observed that two staff gave medication to people. Staff were seen to encourage people to take their medicines and gave people good explanations about why they needed their medicines. One person refused to take their medication and we saw that staff went back to the person later in the morning when they agreed to take this. We looked at the medication and storage. We saw that Controlled Drugs were signed for and that balances were correct. Medicines were signed in upon receipt to the home. We looked at three people’s medication administration records (MAR). We found that one person’s pain relief medication was not accurate. One person’s dose of an antibiotic remained in the packet and the chart was not signed to say why this had not been given. The manager told us that she would address this with the person who should have administered the medication. The fridge that was used to store medication had been consistently high and no action had been taken to ensure that the medicines were being stored at the correct temperature. The manager told us that she had not been aware of the problem and relied on the staff telling her.

We saw that people looked well presented and were wearing clothing that reflected their individual choices and preferences. At lunchtime it was pleasing to see that not everyone wore a protective bib as this means people were given a choice. We saw that one person had spilt some food down their clothing but staff assisted the person to change their clothes.

We spent some time observing people and the interactions between them and the staff over lunchtime. We saw that staff sometimes outpaced people, for example they would ask people if the

Other evidence

We do not have any other information.