You are here

Archived: Atherton Lodge Inadequate

The provider of this service changed - see new profile

We are carrying out a review of quality at Atherton Lodge. We will publish a report when our review is complete. Find out more about our inspection reports.
All reports

Inspection report

Date of Inspection: 31 October 2011
Date of Publication: 13 December 2011
Inspection Report published 13 December 2011 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

Our judgement

Assessment and care planning processes are in need of review to ensure records are fully completed and provide a clear audit trail for all care provided.

User experience

People spoken with reported that they were satisfied with the standard of care and treatment provided and were of the opinion that staff understood their needs.

Comments received included: “The home is very nice and comfortable and I am looked after well” and “The staff are very caring and I am happy living here.”

Other evidence

We looked at the personal files of three people who live at Atherton Lodge during our site visit.

The registered manager reported that original assessments of need had been archived. We noted that pre-assessment forms were on file however some key sections had not been completed.

Long term needs assessment records had been completed for each person using the service and these had been kept under regular review. Each file also contained a plan of care that outlined: individual needs; nursing assessment of problem / need; nursing goal; objective and interactions; date and evaluation / outcome.

A range of supporting documentation including: Life story information; doctors notes and multi-disciplinary records; risk assessments; personal inventories; infection prevention tools; dependency profiles; personal care records; social activity plans and daily reports were also on file.

We noted that some key documents had not been signed by the people using the service or their representatives to confirm agreement with the information recorded and a number of documents were not accurately dated. For example some records did not contain the date of entry or the year. Likewise some health care records did not provide sufficient evidence that the routine health care needs of the people using the service were being met. For example, there was no evidence that some residents had accessed routine health care such as chiropody, dentist and optician appointments. These issues were raised with the registered manager for action.

We talked with the staff and watched the staff providing care during our visit. We saw that staff were attentive to the needs of the people using the service and that people were supported in a caring and respectful manner.