You are here

Archived: Monet Lodge

This service is now registered at a different address - see new profile

All reports

Inspection report

Date of Inspection: 20 December 2012
Date of Publication: 26 January 2013
Inspection Report published 26 January 2013 PDF | 94.92 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 reviewed information sent to us by other organisations, carried out a visit on 20 December 2012, observed how people were being cared for 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 and talked with stakeholders.

We were accompanied by a Mental Health Act commissioner who met with patients who are detained or receiving supervised community treatment under the Mental Health Act 1983.

Our judgement

People experienced care, treatment and support that met their needs and protected their rights.

Reasons for our judgement

We spoke with four people who were being cared for in this hospital and four sets of relatives of people who were being cared for in this hospital about the care they received. All the people we spoke with were very positive about the care they or their relatives received. One person who used the service told us: "I haven’t been too well lately and they [the staff] have been very considerate – very kind". A relative we spoke with said: “They’ve been very accommodating. They bend over backwards. It’s probably the best place [my relative] has been.” One relative did raise some minor issues but was happy to speak to the manager in the first instance. This included the lack of activities.

We looked at the records of people who use services. These showed that people's needs were assessed before they were admitted to the service. The records included an assessment of risks and actions needed to reduce any risks that had been identified. These were updated and reviewed regularly. There was evidence that people who use services had been involved in the assessments, where possible.

The care plans we looked at were of a good standard and clearly related to the assessment of needs on admission. Care plans included information about people's histories and preferences. The actions needed to provide care were clearly written and individualised. People's care plans were reviewed regularly and changes made to care plans where required. The staff we spoke with had a very good understanding of the needs of the people currently in the hospital.

We observed how people were cared for and saw that they were looked after in accordance with their care plans. People looked well cared for. We saw staff help people in a way that encouraged their independence. The provider may wish to ensure that the television programmes watched in the communal areas are geared towards the people being cared for.

We observed mealtimes and saw that staff engaged people in conversation. Where people needed assistance at mealtimes, we saw staff providing practical support and encouragement to ensure that people ate well. We spoke with the hospital’s chef who told us about the differing dietary needs of the patients in the hospital at this time.

Incidents were recorded and investigated to identify what actions were needed to prevent a recurrence. We saw evidence that these actions were then carried out. There were effective systems in place for sharing information with other health care providers.

We saw that four people were currently detained under the Mental Health Act. The Mental Health Act has special rules around care and treatment for mental disorder. The records relating to people detained were seen by the Mental Health Act Commissioner (MHAC) who confirmed that the hospital was complying with the Mental Health Act in relation to rules around care and treatment. People who were detained had access to an Independent Mental Health Advocate (IMHA) to support them with their rights as detained patients.

There was no-one being cared for in this hospital subject to deprivation of liberty safeguards (DoLs). This is where there are restrictions placed on someone's daily life which amounts to depriving them of their liberty. The registered manager had a good understanding of the DoLs processes to ensure that any decision to deprive someone of their liberty was properly assessed and considered.

There was an activities coordinator on the staff role but the post was vacant when we visited. Last time we visited this post was vacant; although the post was filled, the worker had recently left employment with the hospital. The relatives of people using the service confirmed that the number of activities had suffered as a result of the lack of a dedicated activities co-ordinator. We heard of well developed plans to recruit another activities co-ordinator. We will check on this next time we visit. We did see some activities taking place and also saw facilities such a