You are here

All reports

Inspection report

Date of Inspection: 27 September 2012
Date of Publication: 22 October 2012
Inspection Report published 22 October 2012 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

Our judgement

The provider was compliant with this standard. People experienced care, treatment and support that met their needs and protected their rights.

User experience

Some people living at Chater Lodge had cognitive and communication difficulties. 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. We also spoke with two people who used the service and a visiting relative.

We observed that people were offered care and support that met their individual needs and preferences. People were encouraged and enabled to participate in activities that were meaningful to them. People were engaged and occupied for the majority of the time.

We saw that care and support balanced safety and effectiveness with the right of the person to make choices. People were able to maintain as much independence as possible and to take informed risks.

One person told us that their health was 'infinitely better' and that coming to Chater Lodge had 'taken some getting used to but they were perfectly content and happy.

A relative we spoke with told us ‘the activities lady is very good, there are things going on most days’.

Other evidence

People’s needs were assessed and care and treatment was planned and delivered in line with their individual care plan.

We looked at care and assessment records for four people who used the service. Care plans and risk assessments were in place for all assessed needs and risks. Care plans were person focused and included information about the person, their preferences and life histories. This information assists staff to provide person centred care and support even where the person may not be able to clearly verbalise their needs and preferences. Care plans for communication were particularly detailed. Where people were unable to verbalise, staff knew how to read and interpret their non verbal cues.

The Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards were only used when it was considered to be in the person’s best interest. Each person had their capacity to make decisions assessed. Staff knew that if people had to have their liberty deprived in order to keep them safe. This would only be done following a best interest assessment undertaken by the deprivation of liberty safeguarding team.

We saw evidence in care records that people were referred to other healthcare professionals such as GP’s and community nurses as soon as this was required.

The provider had a business continuity plan. This informed staff of what action to take in the event of an emergency and included contingency plans to respond to additional demands on the service.