You are here

Archived: Allied Healthcare - Newbury

All reports

Inspection report

Date of Inspection: 16 July 2013
Date of Publication: 4 September 2013
Inspection Report published 04 September 2013 PDF | 75.38 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 16 July 2013, checked how people were cared for at each stage of their treatment and care and talked with people who use the service. We talked with staff.

Our judgement

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

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

The care files we saw contained references to the views and preferences of the person supported or their representatives. For example people’s wishes around meals and other aspects of their lifestyle were included. The plans included sections on “What is important to me” and “How I want to be supported”. People had also been asked their feelings about receiving support to assist in meeting their needs. The contract provided for half an hour flexibility at either end of each call. There was a weekly care timetable on every file, which detailed the agreed times of the care package. This meant that people had been involved in planning their care and knew the times the care staff should be available to them. The provider may find it useful to note that some care files contained limited information on people’s wishes and involvement.

The files included the signatures of the person supported or their representative to confirm receipt of the statement of purpose, service user guide and terms and conditions. This showed that people were provided with relevant information about the agency. Signed consent to care forms were present on files. This meant that people were provided with the information they needed to decide whether the agency could meet their needs and consented to the care plan.

The people we spoke with who received support from the agency told us they had been involved in planning and reviewing their care. One person said they were “happy with the service” and another told us “they are flexible”. The staff we spoke with also told us that people were involved in planning their care and that their wishes were met where possible within the overall plan.