You are here

Archived: Peacehaven

All reports

Inspection report

Date of Inspection: 3 October 2012
Date of Publication: 31 October 2012
Inspection Report published 31 October 2012 PDF | 82.6 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 3 October 2012, observed how people were being cared for and checked how people were cared for at each stage of their treatment and care. We talked with people who use the service and talked with staff.

Our judgement

People’s privacy, dignity and independence were respected and 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

The registered manager visited people in their own homes and talked with them about the care and support they needed before they moved into the home. We saw that records of assessments of people’s needs were kept in their care plan folders. One person we spoke with told us, “I agreed the care and support I needed at the outset.” This meant that people were given appropriate information and knew whether their care and support needs would be met before they moved into the home.

We saw that people who lived at the home had monthly reviews with senior carers about how their care and support was delivered. Written records of the reviews described what was discussed and were signed by people or their relatives. The provider had set up a Welfare Committee, which visited all the care homes in the group, to check on the quality of care and support. We saw that the Welfare committee spoke directly with people who lived at the home, and checked that care plans were person centred. One person told us, “The Welfare committee come and visit us, you can tell them anything.”

We found that regular meetings were organised for people who lived at the home. People discussed the food, activities and outings. People we spoke with told us they felt involved in making decisions about their care and support. We saw there was a notice board in the hallway which included copies of meeting minutes, the provider’s newsletter, a copy of our previous inspection report and a list of the daily volunteer bible readers. This meant that people expressed their views and were involved in making decisions about their care and support.

Care staff we talked with told us how they supported people to maintain their hobbies and interests. They told us about people’s preferences for joining in group activities or spending time on their own interests. One person we spoke with said, “I like to go to gardens and staff take me.” Another person told us, “I go out twice a week to a knitting group.” We saw that staff had enabled people to be as independent as possible. For example, a toilet door had a special raised symbol so that one person who was mobile, but with poor vision, was able to use the toilet independently. We saw that some people with strong preferences for where they sat in the lounge had their names embroidered into the chair backs. This meant that people were supported in promoting their independence and community involvement.