You are here

Archived: The Yachtsman Rest Home

The provider of this service changed - see new profile

All reports

Inspection report

Date of Inspection: 29 November 2012
Date of Publication: 22 December 2012
Inspection Report published 22 December 2012 PDF

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 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 29 November 2012 and observed how people were being cared for. We checked how people were cared for at each stage of their treatment and care, talked with people who use the service and talked with staff.

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.

Our judgement

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

Reasons for our judgement

We observed how staff supported people living in The Yachtsman Rest Home. We did this using a method called Short Observational Framework for Inspection (SOFI). This involved observing staff interactions with the people in their care. Staff were supportive and reassuring throughout the observation process. This meant they were aware of peoples needs and had the skills to deliver care.

People were treated in a respectful and dignified manner. Staff supported people in a relaxed unhurried way, encouraging them to become involved in activities. We saw staff discreetly assisting people to their rooms for personal care while quietly explaining the reason for this. We also saw staff sensitively re-orientating one person who had become confused.

We saw that routines in the home were flexible. People were supported to rise and retire at times of their choosing. They were encouraged to make choices about their care and support. We observed people being given choices about the activities they wanted to do.

Staff involved people in decision making. Where people lacked mental capacity, staff told us best interests meetings had been carried out over important decisions. The person, the family and appropriate professionals had been involved in the decisions.

We looked at some care records. Records showed that people living in the home and where appropriate their relatives, were involved in managing their care. As well as making choices about care they needed they were also planning for the future.