You are here

All reports

Inspection report

Date of Inspection: 10 November 2011
Date of Publication: 14 December 2011
Inspection Report published 14 December 2011 PDF

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 can exercise choice in the home and their privacy and dignity are being respected. Activities are being arranged and people are mostly well informed about the home and the service they receive. However, there are shortcomings and information about people’s individual circumstances is not being consistently maintained. This is important so that each person can be supported in a person centred way.

Overall, we found that Brendoncare Froxfield was meeting this essential standard but, to maintain this, we suggested that improvements are made.

User experience

People were provided with information which helped them to understand their rights and make decisions. Information was displayed in the front hall, including guidance about advocacy and specialist services for older people. There were leaflets about making a compliment or a complaint and telling people how they could pass on their views. One person showed us a newsletter that was produced each week. The newsletter was informative, with various articles and details about forthcoming events.

Information was displayed about activities in the home and the various events that were taking place. An activities co-ordinator was reading a newspaper to several people in the lounge when we arrived at the home. People were kept informed of what was happening both in the home and in the wider community. People told us that they had been involved in the planning of a remembrance service which had been arranged for the next day.

However, the information that people received was not all up to date. This included a guide to the home and the home’s statement of purpose, which people had been given to keep in their rooms. The documents that we saw had been produced in February 2004; a lot of the information had since changed and was now out of date.

We saw people using the communal areas during the day. Some people met together in the lounge before lunch and enjoyed having a glass of sherry. We met other people who stayed in their own rooms, either through choice or because they were receiving care in bed. People’s rooms had been well personalised with pictures and ornaments, which made them look very homely.

One of the staff said “choice is a priority” and we were told how people were supported with making choices. This included people being offered a choice of menus and being asked what clothes they would like to wear. A staff member gave us an example of how a person had told them, on the morning of our visit, that they would like to stay in bed longer; the staff member said that they had changed their routine to fit around the person’s wishes. When going around the home we heard another staff member asking someone if they wanted to go to the dining room for lunch or to have the meal in their own room.

People told us that their privacy and dignity were being respected. Staff referred to people by name and talked in a respectful way. We heard one of the staff taking time to compliment someone on their hairstyle and talk to them about what they had done during the day. We saw that people’s privacy was being respected, such as when staff drew the window curtains in somebody’s ground floor bedroom before providing them with personal care.

People were involved in the planning of their care, with relatives also involved when people could not express their own views directly. The relatives we met during our visit told us they were made to feel welcome in the home and were being kept well informed. Staff said that the involvement of relatives was important, particularly when their family member in the home was receiving end of life care.

Other evidence

Staff told us they worked hard to maintain people’s dignity when they were receiving end of life care. Care staff said that they were confident that they would be told about any relevant cultural and religious beliefs which would need to be observed.

People had individual care plans which were easily accessible in their bedrooms. Some of the plans we saw had been dated and signed by the person, or their representative, to confirm their agreement to what was written. However this was not happening consistently.

We saw information in the care plans which helped staff to support people with making choices and decisions. This included information about whether the person was able to make their wishes known. In one care plan we read that the person was unable to express their needs; there was guidance for staff about the need to speak clearly and to observe for non-verbal signs of discomfort. A staff member told us that flash cards and photographs had been used to communicate with one person whose first language was not English.

Some sections of people’s plans had not completed. This included, for example, a section for recording a person’s getting up time and bedtime. This meant that there were gaps in information about people’s individual needs and preferences. We also saw that records of people’s daily activities were not being completed consistently, which meant that it was difficult to monitor how well their social needs were being met.