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 cared for in safe and accessible surroundings that support their health and welfare (outcome 10)

Meeting this standard

We checked that people who use this service

  • Are in safe, accessible surroundings that promote their wellbeing.

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 who use the service, staff and visitors were protected against the risks of unsafe or unsuitable premises.

Reasons for our judgement

People who live at the home must be protected against any risks associated with unsafe or unsuitable premises. We looked in the lounge, dining room, bathrooms, shower rooms and six bedrooms of people who lived at the home. We saw that the home was clean and appeared to be hygienic. We did not notice any unpleasant odours as we walked around the building. We saw that access could be gained to the first floor of the home via a shaft lift. Adapted toilets were available as were shower chairs in wet rooms and hydraulic bath chairs in baths.

The bedrooms we looked at were large enough to enable people to manoeuvre around in a wheelchair if needed. We saw that bedrooms had en-suite facilities. We saw that there was a sluice room for the cleaning of commode pans. The manager told us that this room was not in use as currently nobody used a commode and everybody either used their en-suite toilet or other toilets throughout the home.

We saw that the dining room was large enough to accommodate everyone that lived at the home if necessary. Staff told us that people had a choice of where to eat their meals. We heard a member of staff asking a person living at the home if they wished to eat their evening meal in their bedroom or in the dining room.

The home had a conservatory which adjoined the lounge area. The doors to the conservatory were open as were the doors to the garden. This meant that people could choose where to sit and could sit or walk around outside in the garden if they wished. We saw that the garden was well maintained and was decorated with brightly coloured pots of flowers. We were told that the security alarm on the external doors was activated at certain times of the day. We saw a notice to staff advising them of the times to close the doors and put the security alarm on. This would ensure that the premises were secured at night and staff were alerted if external doors were opened.

We saw that flooring around the home was clean and were told that it was non-slip. This would reduce the risk of an accident if liquids were spilt on the floor.

The lounge area was large and bright; seating was arranged in clusters to aid discussion amongst people in small groups. We saw that signs had been put up which had appropriate pictures and words to help people find their way around the home. Staff were working with people to make signs for their bedroom doors. Some signs were already in place and were made up of the individual’s favourite activities, pictures or colours.

We saw a copy of a building audit. We were told that this took place each year and looked at health and safety, décor, flooring and cleanliness amongst other things. Some issues for action had been identified by the manager. The manager discussed the action that had been taken to address issues; however there was no written evidence of action taken. The registered person may wish to note that documentary evidence should be available to demonstrate action taken when issues were identified at audits.

We saw the ‘annual development folder’ this recorded items to be reviewed each year. Décor had been reviewed previously, there were no records to demonstrate that a recent review had taken place. The manager told us that decorating had recently started. We spoke with two members of staff who said that they had felt that the home was in need of re-decorating in certain areas but both staff confirmed that decorating was taking place now.