You are here

Easthill Home for Deaf People Good

Our most recent reports on this service are available as British sign language videos. You can watch the video of our December 2015 report here. British sign language videos of our July 2015 report and our November 2014 report are also available.
All reports

Inspection report

Date of Inspection: 9, 17 September 2014
Date of Publication: 1 November 2014
Inspection Report published 01 November 2014 PDF

People should get safe and appropriate care that meets their needs and supports their rights (outcome 4)

Not met this standard

We checked that people who use this service

  • Experience effective, safe and appropriate care, treatment and support that meets their needs and protects their rights.

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 9 September 2014 and 17 September 2014, 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.

We were supported on this inspection by an expert-by-experience. This is a person who has personal experience of using or caring for someone who uses this type of care service.

We used British Sign Language (BSL) interpreter to help us communicate with people and staff.

Our judgement

People’s needs were assessed and care and treatment was planned and delivered in line with their individual care plan. However, people were not always supported to access healthcare services. Parts of the environment were not conducive to people’s welfare and emergency plans were not robust.

Reasons for our judgement

We spoke with six of 13 people using the service at the time of our inspection by using a British Sign Language (BSL) interpreter. People told us they were able to converse with each other using BSL and appreciated having staff who were proficient in BSL. We observed staff interacting positively with people, for example by kneeling down so they communicated on the same level as people in chairs; they also used touch, where appropriate, to calm, relax and show empathy with people. People told us they were happy with the quality of care and support they received and told us staff were caring. One person said staff were “all very good”; for example they “write in a book when I want a bath and always remember”. Another person described staff as “good people”, and a third person said they “love everything” about the home. A visiting community nurse told us they had “no concerns” about the home; they said staff referred people to them appropriately and sought and followed advice.

People told us they had enough to do. They said they accessed the garden, played games and sometimes went on trips to local attractions. We saw people were supported to help prepare meals and drinks and one person did their own laundry. Two people told us they attended a community deaf club, although another person said they had chosen to stop attending this.

People’s needs were assessed and care and treatment was planned and delivered in line with their individual care plan. We saw that people had detailed, personalised care plans, which had been developed either with the person concerned or their family members. They included plans to meet the person’s physical and emotional needs and information about how to communicate with the person. Sections described “What you need to know to keep me safe”, “Things that are important to me" and “This is what I do, this is what it means and this is what you should do”. People described the care and support they received, which was in line with their individual plans. The manager told us care plans were constantly being developed as the improved ability of deaf staff to communicate with people meant they were discovering new information about people and their needs, which they were then able to plan to meet. Staff told us the plans contained the information they needed to deliver effective care.

However, we found there was a lack of information about when staff needed to administer medicines that were prescribed on an “as required” basis, for example to relieve pain or anxiety. The information did not include guidance about how staff could identify when these medicines were needed, how often they should be given and what staff should do if the expected outcome was not achieved. This meant people were at risk of not receiving “as required” medicines safely and consistently when needed.

In most cases, care and treatment was planned and delivered in a way that was intended to ensure people’s safety and welfare. People’s care plans contained risk assessments for risks affecting their wellbeing, such as the risk of falling or the risks posed by bedrails. Risks to others posed by behaviours that challenged others and their possible reaction to assistance with personal care were also identified. These were followed up by behaviour management risk assessments. We saw actions required to manage the risks were taken, for example by providing suitable crockery and cutlery to meet one person’s specific needs. Action plans were in place to reduce risks to people’s safety and wellbeing. Two people had diabetes and needed their blood sugar levels monitoring regularly by staff; this was done by trained staff, but there was a lack of information recorded about the range of levels that was normal and safe for each person and what action staff should take if their levels were outside of this range.

People’s care plans contained records of visits and appointments with healthcare professionals such as psychiatrists, doctors, dentist