You are here

Archived: Partridge Care Centre Requires improvement

The provider of this service changed - see new profile

All reports

Inspection report

Date of Inspection: 8 August 2012
Date of Publication: 21 September 2012
Inspection Report published 21 September 2012 PDF | 76.02 KB


Inspection carried out on 8 August 2012

During a routine inspection

During our inspection on the 7 and 8 August 2012, we spoke with five people who used the service and five relatives.

One relative that we spoke with said that the care had, "Improved a lot. It was bad." They said that they now felt safe in the knowledge that their relative is being cared for at the service. They said, "There were too many temporaries and agencies. [My relative] likes consistency of people as they know [their] ways. Now we see the same faces."

A person who used the service said, "I've got Alzheimer’s. I get a bit forgetful. They remind me what day it is and say, 'Your family's coming today'. They went on to explain that they don't see many new members of staff but that when there are, they were introduced to them.

Later in our inspection, we spoke with this person's relative. They said that their relative was treated "with the utmost dignity and respect." They said, "Things have got better. There's more awareness. [My relative] is an independent person." The person who used the service then interjected, "They don't just let you sit there. They don't force you to do anything; they encourage you."

The people in the second Mallard Suite were living with dementia and therefore not everyone was able to tell us about their experiences. To help us to understand the experiences people have we used our Short Observational Framework for Inspection (SOFI) tool. The SOFI tool allows us to spend time watching what is going on in a service and helps us to record how people spend their time, the type of support they get and whether they have positive experiences. We spent 40 minutes observing at lunchtime and found that overall people had positive experiences. The staff supporting the people knew what support they needed and they respected their wishes if they wanted to manage on their own. We saw staff interacting well with the people, showing them the different meal options that were available and offering people encouragement to eat their meals.