You are here

Options Roxby House Outstanding

All reports

Inspection report

Date of Inspection: 24 November 2011
Date of Publication: 30 December 2011
Inspection Report published 30 December 2011 PDF

The service should have quality checking systems to manage risks and assure the health, welfare and safety of people who receive care (outcome 16)

Meeting this standard

We checked that people who use this service

  • Benefit from safe quality care, treatment and support, due to effective decision making and the management of risks to their health, welfare and safety.

How this check was done

Our judgement

People who use the service are supported to comment on aspects of the service. Effective quality assurance systems are in place to promote good practice and address any shortfalls.

User experience

Although some people were not able to communicate with us other people told us that they liked living at the home. We asked people questions about the home, the care they received and staff caring for them. Their responses indicated that they liked living at the Roxby House and were happy with the care they received. Comments included “I like living here”, “I have lots of friends”, “We can choose the meals, I like the pizza” and “I have a job, its good”.

Other evidence

During this visit we spoke with people who use the service, we spoke with staff and looked at records.

We saw evidence that people who use the service were encouraged and supported to comment on the service and were involved in decision making where possible. One

person told us " I liked choosing my key worker”.

Records of the resident meeting minutes showed that people who use the service had the opportunity to discuss areas of the service such as meals, activities and outings.

We saw records which showed that the manager also held meetings with staff from all departments.

The service has a comprehensive audit programme and we looked at examples of recent audits that had been carried out. These included audits of care plans, staff supervision and risk assessments. Where areas of deficiency had been identified the provider had put action plans in place. We found that the provider had implemented improvements identified in the action plans.

Due to the complex communication needs of the people who use the service their views were sought and supported through their key workers. We saw examples of recent surveys that had been carried out on areas such as food and the environment. Records showed that people who use the service were generally satisfied with these aspects of the service and had been given feedback individually about the outcomes of the survey.

We saw records which showed that the manager closely monitors all incidents and use of physical intervention in the service. All incidents are reviewed each month which aids staff at the service to identify any potential triggers and enables them to amend the support plans and risk assessments accordingly.