You are here

Archived: White Lodge Rest Home

The provider of this service changed - see new profile

All reports

Inspection report

Date of Inspection: 2 November 2012
Date of Publication: 27 November 2012
Inspection Report published 27 November 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, carried out a visit on 2 November 2012, observed how people were being cared for and talked with people who use the service. We talked with staff.

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. People were able to make choices about the support they needed and their privacy and dignity was respected and promoted where appropriate.

Reasons for our judgement

People who used the service understood the care and treatment choices available to them. We were told by staff that people could choose what time they got up in the morning and although the records could not confirm this we saw people in their rooms when we were being shown around the home. We spoke to people during our visit who told us that they could go to their rooms when they wanted to. They were able to tell us that they were very happy with the home and the support and care that they received from the staff. We observed the chef sitting down with one person to discuss their food choices for lunch and explaining the menu. Staff told us that they would do this on a daily basis.

Care plans contained details of how people were able to make decisions. Where people were unable to make decisions about their care there was information who should be consulted and how this decision had been made.

People expressed their views and were involved in making decisions about their care and treatment. We found that a system was in place to consult with people about their care. The head of care or a senior staff member reviewed the care plans with people on a regular basis either monthly or as required. However, not all care plans had been signed by people. Staff told us that not everyone wanted to be involved but they endeavoured to discuss any changes with people when needed. We looked at records for five people living in the home and found that there was a good care planning process in place. They clearly identified a range of choices made by people with some signatures from them around consent issues. There was clear evidence of how each person wished to be addressed which was used throughout the care plans. There was a clear section devoted to the individual’s rights and identified their ability to make choices.

People were supported in promoting their independence and community involvement. We were informed by the manager that people were given a choice of what to do during the day and that some people went out. One person informed us that they would like to go out in the minibus more often which we had been informed by the manager was currently being investigated.

People's diversity, values and human rights were respected. We saw staff treating people with respect and also considered their privacy and dignity. We observed staff knocking on bedroom and toilet doors before entering the room; this included the domestic staff and maintenance man. Staff spoke to people in a calm manner, knowing how to respond to different people’s' needs. People told us that they received the help that they needed. We saw that care plans included information about what people could do for themselves to remain independent but also how staff should support them. People told us that staff provided the care needed politely and checked what was wanted. This meant that people made day to day decisions about the care they received and they told us they felt respected.