You are here

Archived: Parklands Good

The provider of this service changed - see new profile

All reports

Inspection report

Date of Inspection: 30 May 2013
Date of Publication: 11 June 2013
Inspection Report published 11 June 2013 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)

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 30 May 2013, observed how people were being cared for and talked with people who use the service. We 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

Peoples privacy, dignity and independence were respected.

Reasons for our judgement

People expressed their views and were involved in making decisions about their care and treatment.

At our last inspection in April 2013 we found the provider was not compliant with this essential standard. This was because the dignity and respect of service users was not maintained during mealtimes.

In response the provider sent us an action plan showing how they were going to make improvements. At this inspection visit we looked again at this outcome area and measures taken by the provider to become compliant.

We spent time observing how staff supported people living in the home, including a mealtime. We found people were treated respectfully. We saw people were offered the choice of a protective apron before the meal started and if their decision was not to use a protective apron then this was respected by staff. We saw staff provided people with the support they needed during the meal. For example, if people needed staff to help them cut or position their food on their fork, then staff did this in a helpful, open and friendly way which helped people to enjoy their mealtime experience. We saw care staff sitting beside each person they were supporting so they were at the same height, talking with them about how they would like to be assisted and helping them decide how each part of the meal was to be eaten. We found the atmosphere in the dining area to be relaxed and informal with care staff smiling and giving people good eye contact. We also saw people held hands with staff who took time to give them personal support and attention. One person we spoke with told us, “I’m content here, the staff are always laughing.”

We watched staff support people at a pace that was comfortable to them. For example, people were not rushed during the mealtime and there were enough staff to make sure everyone received individual attention. People were also supported to walk at a pace that was comfortable to them when moving around the home.

We saw people who used the service were involved in their care with their preferences being sought. For example, one person had indicated a preference to face the window when sitting in the dining area. We saw this preference was respected by staff. One person described how they were able to choose their bedroom. They said “I chose my room. My relatives think I have made the wrong choice but I am happy.” ”

During our visit we watched and heard staff consult and involve people before providing personal care or support. This meant that people who lived at the home were in control and able to direct staff to meet their needs in a way they preferred.

When we last visited we found plugs had been removed from the bathroom sinks in some bedrooms with en-suite bathrooms to prevent the risk of flooding. However, no individual risk assessments had been carried out to demonstrate this was needed nor had there been any instances where flooding had taken place. During this inspection we found plugs had been replaced so people could fill and use their sink independently if they wanted to.

All of these measures demonstrated how people’s dignity, respect and independence was promoted in the home.