You are here

Archived: Harpers Villas Care Centre

All reports

Inspection report

Date of Inspection: 25 June 2013
Date of Publication: 25 July 2013
Inspection Report published 25 July 2013 PDF | 92.18 KB

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)

Meeting 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 25 June 2013, observed how people were being cared for and talked with people who use the service. We talked with staff and talked with commissioners of services.

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 privacy, dignity and independence were respected. People’s views and experiences were taken into account in the way the service was provided and delivered in relation to their care.

Reasons for our judgement

Suitable arrangements should be in place to ensure that the dignity, independence and privacy of people who live at a home is always maintained. During this visit we spent most of our time in the lounge observing the interaction between staff and people who lived at the home. We saw that staff encouraged people to remain independent when walking around the home and when eating their meals. We visited on a warm, sunny day and noted that people were able to wander freely into the garden as the doors to the conservatory were left open.

Staff knocked on people’s bedroom doors and waited for a response before entering their room. We saw that some people had chosen to lock their bedroom doors, both when they were in their room and when they left it. Risk assessments were in place regarding this and staff had a master key to enable them to enter the room in case of emergency. This meant that people had been given a choice to keep their door locked to maintain their privacy if they wished.


At our last visit to the home in October 2013, we saw that when staff used a handling belt to help move a person who lived at the home from her wheelchair, her skirt lifted showing the top of her thigh. This did not maintain this person’s dignity. We also saw that catheter bags were on show for some people. At this visit we saw one person being hoisted, staff put a blanket over this person’s legs whilst she was being hoisted to maintain her dignity. We saw staff using a handling belt and noted that people were moved in a dignified manner. We were told that staff were more vigilant and watched to ensure that catheter bags were covered at all times. We did not see any catheter bags on show during this visit.

Systems should be in place to ensure that people are able to participate in decisions about their care or treatment. We looked at two care files. In each of these files we saw written evidence to demonstrate that the care file has been discussed with the person living at the home or their family as applicable. Mental capacity assessments were in place to demonstrate that those people who lived at the home who did not review their care file did not have the mental capacity to do so.

We saw that staff treated people with respect and called them by their preferred name. Staff appeared to have a good relationship with the people that they provided care and support to.

We discussed the various systems in place to ensure that people who lived at the home had a say in the way in which their care was provided and in how the home was run. Regular satisfaction surveys encouraged people to give feedback about the service provided. The manager told us that she had an open door policy. This meant that people could speak with her any time that she was on the premises. We saw that people who lived at the home called in to the manager’s office regularly to chat with her. Meetings were held for the people who lived at the home and their relatives/friends every three months. We looked at the minutes of the last meeting and saw that people were able to discuss menus, hobbies and interests and activities amongst other things. People who lived at the home had commented that they would like more trips out to the pub for lunch or to the shops. The manager told us that staff took people out as often as possible. We were shown a notice asking for volunteers to take people out to the pub for lunch. Some staff had recorded their name showing that they were willing to take people out on trips.

Care files recorded people’s usual routines, likes and dislikes. Staff we spoke with were aware of people’s routines but said that they always asked people and did not assume that people always wanted to go to bed at the same time or get up at the same time. We were told that people still had a choice in everything that they did at the home.

At our last visit to the service there were no signs around the home to help people orientate themselves to their surroundings. At this vi