You are here

Archived: Devonshire Manor

The provider of this service changed - see new profile

All reports

Inspection report

Date of Inspection: 8 April 2014
Date of Publication: 10 May 2014

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 8 April 2014, observed how people were being cared for and talked with people who use the service. We talked with carers and / or family members, talked with staff and talked with commissioners of services.

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

Some of the people who lived at the home had communication difficulties and were unable to speak to us. We spoke to two people who lived at the home and three relatives. People told us they were treated with dignity and respect and that staff were nice. They said they were able to choose how they lived their life at the home for example what they ate, what time they got up or went to bed. One person said “I like being here, it’s my home now, I’m happy”.

Relatives we spoke with said they felt involved in people’s care and that staff kept them fully informed. Comments included “Staff really made them welcome”; “I can pick up the phone and speak to staff, they go out of their way to help” and “You get very good feedback from staff”.

We looked at three care records and saw the person's views and preferences had been discussed and taken into account in the planning and delivery of care. For example, people’s likes and dislikes; preferred daily routines; social and leisure interests and level of independence were all clearly documented. This demonstrated that people and/or their relatives had been enabled to participate in making decision relating to their care.

The provider may find it useful to note however that where people had limited mental capacity, care plans did not provide any guidance to staff on how best to communicate with the person. This meant that there was a risk that staff would not know how to communicate with the person or understand the decisions the person was able to make.

We found that people who lived at the home were given appropriate information about their care. We saw there were service user guides available in everyone's room. The guide provided a clear, user-friendly description of what people could expect from the service and the staff team, it outlined people's rights and responsibilities and gave details of the provider’s complaints procedure. Details of how to make a complaint were also displayed in the entrance area of the home.

The provider may find it useful to note that complaints procedure in the service user guide did not provide contact details for the ‘person in charge’. It also did not give the correct address at the Local Authority or contact details for Care Quality Commission and the local Government Ombudsman to whom people could refer their complaint. This meant there was a risk that people and/or their families would not know who address their complaint to.