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

Meeting 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 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 experienced care, treatment and support that met their needs and protected their rights.

Reasons for our judgement

People’s needs were assessed and care and treatment was planned and delivered in line with their individual care plan. We looked at a sample of people's care plans and saw that there they were reviewed whenever a change in the person's condition occurred. For example we saw that a person's change in medication had been recorded on the review of their care plan in January 2013.

Care and treatment was planned and delivered in a way that was intended to ensure people’s safety and welfare. There were risk assessments in place for issues such as the risk of choking, increased risk of fractures due to a person's medical condition and challenging behaviour. Staff were asked to sign each risk assessment to confirm they had read and understood it. The majority of risk assessments had been updated recently and signed by staff.

People’s care and treatment reflected relevant research and guidance. We saw that some people living at the home had been assessed by different professionals including speech and language therapists, learning disability and mental health specialists. The guidance from these professionals had been recorded in the person's care plans. We asked staff to tell us about some of the ways they could support people at the home with complex needs and the staff were aware of the specialist guidance. For example one staff member was able to describe exactly how a person's food should be prepared and how they should be supported to eat, in line with documented guidance from the speech and language therapist. Another staff member was able to identify possible triggers to a person's challenging behaviour, and actions to take in order to support this person, in line with the recommendations from a specialist professional.

There were some arrangements in place to deal with foreseeable emergencies. Staff on one unit of the home were able to produce a first aid box which contained all items listed on their checklist and items were in date. However the other unit’s first aid box contained out of date items and was not easily located. When we discussed this with the manager they immediately arranged for a replacement first aid kit to be purchased on the day of inspection and then confirmed that carrying out checks on the first aid box items had been added to the staff rota so it was clear when the checks needed to be done. We were not able to monitor this at the time of the inspection.