You are here

Archived: Albany Park

The provider of this service changed - see new profile

All reports

Inspection report

Date of Inspection: 7 December 2010
Date of Publication: 18 April 2011
Inspection Report published 18 April 2011 PDF

Contents menu

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

Our judgement

People told us that staff treated them with dignity and respect. However, we found that care plans did not record peoples' preferences. We saw that people were not provided with activities that met their needs. This means that people may be at risk of not being involved in decisions about their care.

User experience

Staff were observed to interact well with people. They called people by their preferred names. We saw that staff treated them with respect. We saw that staff knew how to communicate with people. A person when asked about how staff treated them confirmed that, “I am very happy here.” This meant that staff treated people with dignity. People knew that staff respected their wishes.

People told us that they could practice their religion. People said that the home helps them to attend religious services. People confirmed that staff knew and respected their cultural and religious needs. The home meets the religious and cultural needs people to promote their well-being.

We observed that many people were just sitting without anything to do.

A person told us “I feel bored”. We observed that only a few people were engaged in activities. The majority of people were left doing nothing. People told us that there were not enough activities for them to do. This meant that they were not always supported to engage in activities. Activities need to be provided that meet the needs of people.

Other evidence

We looked at peoples’ care plans. We found their preferences regarding their care had not been recorded. This issue had been raised at a previous visit to the home. The home had highlighted in their provider compliance assessment that, “We are currently introducing new care plans which are individualised and person centred.” Staff spoken to told us that they had not been trained in how to promote people's dignity when supporting their needs. Training records showed that no training had been provided on providing care that promotes peoples dignity. Care needs to be provided so that it reflects peoples’ preferences and promotes their dignity.