You are here

Archived: Parklands Good

The provider of this service changed - see new profile

All reports

Inspection report

Date of Inspection: 21, 25 May 2012
Date of Publication: 21 June 2012
Inspection Report published 21 June 2012 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

Our judgement

The provider did not meet this standard. There were not suitable arrangements in place at the home to make sure that people's privacy and dignity were supported. We judged that this had a minor impact on people using the service and action was needed for this essential standard.

User experience

People who lived at the home were spoken with, they said,

“They always treat me with dignity and respect.”

“It’s lovely here, near to where I live.”

“I don’t have any complaints, I have everything I need.”

Other evidence

People who used the service did not have their privacy and dignity respected.

When we visited we looked to see how people were supported to express their views, make decisions about their lives and how their dignity and privacy was promoted at the home.

We spent time observing how staff supported people who lived at the home. We found that staff were respectful when they talked to people, treating people with dignity and courtesy. For example, when they supported people who needed help to eat lunch they did this by sitting next to them at a distance which was comfortable for that person. We saw that nobody was rushed, people who lived at the home were given time to respond in conversations, and we saw that staff sat down at the person’s height when talking to them and referred to them by their chosen name.

However when we visited some people in their rooms we found that important confidential information about how their intimate care was to be carried out was attached onto the outside of their wardrobe doors. This highly sensitive information could have been read by any visitor to the home or other residents visiting that room and this practice did not protect peoples’ dignity. We spoke with the manager who told us that this information had been stuck to wardrobe doors as a reminder for staff.

We looked at the new part of the home to see how these areas protected and promoted peoples’ privacy and dignity. The rooms in this part of the home had been completed recently and people had moved there within the previous six weeks. We looked at how peoples’ bedroom doors could be locked and found that four doors could only be locked and unlocked from the outside. This could have led to someone being deliberately or accidentally locked into their room. The acting manager told us that the locks were not intended to operate in this way, she arranged to have them checked and the faulty ones repaired on the day of our visit.

We then looked at how peoples’ bedroom facilities supported their privacy and dignity. We found that there were no locks on the bathroom doors in all of the fifteen bedrooms of the new part of the home. We also saw that people could not lock their bedroom doors from the inside. In practice this meant that peoples’ privacy could not be protected whilst they were using the bathrooms in their rooms nor could they prevent staff and other people who lived at the home from entering their bedroom at any time. This did not protect peoples’ dignity because people could walk into any bedroom when, for example they were using the bathroom, resting in bed or being supported with their personal care needs.