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

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 reviewed all the information we hold about this provider, carried out a visit on 08/08/2012, observed how people were being cared for, talked to staff and talked to people who use services.

Our judgement

The provider was meeting this standard. People’s views and experiences were taken into account in the way the service was provided and delivered in relation to their care.

User experience

One person using the service said, “The staff are very patient and respectful. They never make you feel silly, and they could, like when you ask questions that you have already asked them before, but you had forgotten.” They also told us, “Staff always knock at the door and respect my privacy".

A relative of a person who used the service 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."

We asked the relative whether they felt involved in their relative's care. They said that during a relatives' meeting they had suggested forming a group for relatives so that they could feedback their views to the management of the service. They said that they had since seen letters that the management have sent to relatives with this suggestion. They went on to explain how they had noticed that their relative’s bed was not being made. They informed the staff and the matter was rectified immediately.

Two relatives that we spoke with said that they had been invited by staff at the home to discuss their relative's care plan, thus ensuring that they were involved in their relatives' care and treatment.

Other evidence

In our report of September 2011, we found that the provider was not meeting this standard. This was because there were communal boxes of underwear which were distributed amongst people living at the service. During our inspection of the 7 and 8 August 2012, we found that this practice had ceased. We did see that there was a box of men's socks and ladies' pop-socks which had not been claimed. Staff told us that these were only used if a person living at the service was in need of these items at short-notice.

During lunchtime, we observed the lunch being served in the second Mallard suite. On the whole we saw staff respecting the dignity and independence of people who used the service. We observed four people who were being supported by staff to eat their lunch. We saw that people were assisted with the meal at a pace set by them and that they were not rushed. Staff treated the people with respect, offering them subtle encouragement and praise. People were supported to eat independently and then assisted if required. There was one member of staff who did not engage with the person that they were assisting. This person seemed agitated and unsettled as they looked around the room but the member of staff did not offer any calming words or reassurance.

We saw that appropriate information was provided to people when they were making their meal choices. People were either asked what meal they would prefer or the food was brought out to them so that they could see what was available. This meant that people were enabled to make choices as the options were presented in a way that met their needs.

We saw people could express their views about what they wanted to eat. One person was eating independently and was being encouraged to eat their meal. When the person had eaten enough, they were offered a choice of deserts but wanted both, which were provided.

During our inspection, we looked at six care plans. We saw that people were clearly involved as the care plan contained information about personal preferences and how people liked to be cared for. These also included information about people’s personalities. For example, one of the care plans we viewed said the person was of a, ‘Strong character, sociable, speaks [their] own mind’. We saw that care was delivered to take account of people’s sex and sexuality. Care plans dealt with whether people wished to follow a particular beauty regime and how they liked to be dressed.

Care and treatment was provided with due regard to people’s religious persuasion and cultural background. In all of the care plans we viewed there was information about whether people followed a particular religion. If so, information was provided as to how this was reflected in their care and treatment. For example, in one care plan we viewed we saw that a person’s religion and cultural background meant that they followed a particular diet and required to be dressed a certain way. When we saw the person, we saw that they were dressed accordingly. Further, the care plan gave some translations of key words into the person’s first language. This meant that the person was assisted to express their views.