You are here

Options Roxby House Outstanding

All reports

Inspection report

Date of Inspection: 19 October 2012
Date of Publication: 15 November 2012
Inspection Report published 15 November 2012 PDF | 82.54 KB

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, reviewed information sent to us by other organisations, carried out a visit on 19 October 2012 and checked how people were cared for at each stage of their treatment and care. We talked with people who use the service, talked with carers and / or family members, talked with staff and talked with stakeholders.

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 saw that prior to being offered a place at Roxby House an assessment of the person’s needs was carried out. The registered manager told us, “We visit the young person and commence our assessment. If we feel that we can meet the person’s needs then a transition plan would be developed. However, if we feel that the person’s needs cannot be met then a place would not be offered."

We looked at the care records of two people who used the service and saw that each person had a personal profile which included specific preferences, likes and dislikes. There was also a communication passport which described needs and detailed how the person would communicate and any preferred method. For example, ‘Give me time to process what you have said and give me plenty of time – count in your head from 1-10’. These gave clear information to the reader about how the person would communicate to ensure they were listened to.

We also saw sensory support plans were in place and were specific to the needs of the individual. These included hearing, vision, smell, taste, touch, balance and movement. For example one stated, 'when you are supporting me it is essential to – talk to me in a jovial manner, give me praise and tell me how well I have done’.

We saw that risk had been assessed and each person had individual management plans in place for various areas. These included; going out in public places, medication, epilepsy and behaviours that challenged the service. These detailed signs, triggers, symptoms and how the person may present. The plans were specific, gave direction to staff and stated that the least restrictive technique should be applied first. They stated that physical intervention and the use of 'as required' medication was to be used as a last resort.

People who used the service were observed to be individual in style and dress. Staff told us for those people able to make some choices, they would display various options and this assisted with independence.

Documentation evidenced that health care professionals were contacted for advice and visited people to treat their health needs. We saw that each person had a health action plan in place as recommended by current good practice guidance. Support from a speech and language therapist, clinical psychologist and psychiatrist were provided on site by the organisation.

Structured daily activity programmes have been developed for each person which included independent living skills, therapy and activity sessions. We saw that the people who used the service were relaxed and comfortable in their surroundings and staff supported people in an inclusive way.