You are here

Howard Goble House Requires improvement

All reports

Inspection report

Date of Inspection: 20 March 2012
Date of Publication: 8 May 2012
Inspection Report published 8 May 2012 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

Overall we found that Howard Goble House was meeting this essential standard but, to maintain this, we suggested that some improvements were made. People were supported to be involved in planning and reviewing their care and support, and their independence was supported. During our visit we observed people being responded to as individuals and with warmth; however we also observed a few instances when people were treated in a way that undermined their dignity.

User experience

People we spoke with during our visit on 20 March 2012 told us about how they were supported to take part in the daily activities of living at Howard Goble House. For example, they could help with the housework, which they enjoyed, and staff helped them to cook their meals. Another person told us about being able to see their family at the weekend if they wanted to.

We observed staff engaging with people using the service in a warm and supportive way. Staff knew the people they worked with well and made efforts to engage them in activities that reflected their interests and preferences. However, on one occasion a member of staff spoke to us about a person as if the person was not there, and on a different occasion we observed a member of staff speaking to a person as if they were a child. During a medication round we observed a member of staff treating a person as if they were an object, saying “we’ll get you done next”.

In response to the annual feedback questionnaire in 2011, relatives, family friends and an advocate said staff were respectful and provided a personalised approach to people’s care. They felt that the person’s bedroom reflected their interests and personality. They said they were made to feel welcome and were treated courteously whenever they visited or phoned the home, and were kept informed of relevant matters affecting people using the service.

Other evidence

There was a clear admission process for people considering coming to live at Howard Goble House. It included a comprehensive assessment of their needs and consideration of their preferences and choices in determining whether or not the service was right for them. People were supported to visit the home as part of deciding to live there.

The records of people who used the service we saw showed that their support and care plans were routinely reviewed on a regular basis as well as when the need for adjustments arose, and that other health and social care professionals were also involved in planning and delivering people’s care. Every person using the service had a relative, family friend, or advocate supporting them, and these stakeholders were involved in reviewing and planning people’s care.

People were supported to pursue their own interests, to engage in activities in the community, and to take part in the smooth operation and running of the home, for example through service user meetings.

The Service User Guide provided people with information about how the service aimed to support people and the care it provided; about the staff working at the home, including photographs of them; and about how to make a complaint.

People were supported in their religious observances and in meeting their cultural needs.