You are here

Howard Goble House Requires improvement

All reports

Inspection report

Date of Inspection: 5 February 2013
Date of Publication: 27 February 2013
Inspection Report published 27 February 2013 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

We looked at the personal care or treatment records of people who use the service, carried out a visit on 5 February 2013, observed how people were being cared for and talked with people who use the service. We talked with staff.

We used the Short Observational Framework for Inspection (SOFI). SOFI is a specific way of observing care to help us understand the experience of people who could not talk with us.

Our judgement

People’s privacy, dignity and independence were respected. 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

When we inspected the home in March 2012 we found that in a small number of cases staff did not treat people with respect and dignity. The manager wrote to us and told us what they would do to improve this.

At our inspection of 05 February 2013 we observed staff supporting people at the home. Staff spoke to people in a way that showed them consideration and respect. They ensured people were involved in conversation whenever possible. The interactions staff had with people living at the home were collaborative. We saw staff share a joke with a person using the service.

People expressed their views and were involved in making decisions about their care and treatment. Staff we spoke with told us how they offered people choices and we observed how a staff member offered a person a choice in the way that the person's communication passport suggested was best for this individual. Key workers held regular meetings with people at the home, and these meetings were recorded. We saw that a person had been consulted with and supported to take action to meet their needs.

People's individual preferences were recorded on a likes / dislikes record at the beginning of their care plan. There was also a document which asked people about both their and their family's hopes and dreams for the future, as well as fears about the future so that staff could work to support people in a way that took account of this.

We spoke with three people on the day of our inspection and they told us they could choose the activities they took part in and the sort of things they would like in their rooms. One person told us how they preferred to lock their door at night and we saw this was reflected in their care plan and guidance for night staff. Another person told us they attended meetings about the home with other residents, where people could express their views and ask for any changes. One person told us how they had raised an issue about the size of their room with the manager and had felt listened to.

People were supported in promoting their independence and community involvement. A person living at the home told us how they made their own tea and prepared snacks, as well as doing their own laundry and cleaning. They told us they could ask for support from staff if necessary. Another person told us that they liked the independence of having their own key and said “I can use it whenever I want to”.

We looked at people's individual activity plans and saw that people had activities in the community at times such as attending a day centre or visiting their family home. Staff told us that people who wanted to attend church were supported to do so.

People who use the service were given appropriate information and support regarding their care or treatment. We saw that there were easy read versions of documents available to people in the home. The manager told us how an advocate had been involved for a person in the home recently. A person we spoke with explained how they were given the opportunity to visit the home before they made a decision to move in. We saw a copy of a contract between people living at the home and the provider which was in an easy to read format and gave clear information about expectations people could have whilst living in the home and the expectations the provider had of people. On one unit of the home people kept their care plans in their own room.

People's diversity, values and human rights were respected. We saw that a person who had a different cultural background was supported to visit their family often and take part in family meals. The person's religious beliefs were also detailed in their care plan. This person could not communicate with us at the inspection, but a staff member told us about the person's background and how the person had been supported to obtain equipment to allow them to watch television stations in their own language.