You are here

All reports

Inspection report

Date of Inspection: 20 November 2013
Date of Publication: 17 December 2013
Inspection Report published 17 December 2013 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

We looked at the personal care or treatment records of people who use the service, carried out a visit on 20 November 2013, 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 carers and / or family members 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 experienced care, treatment and support that met their needs and protected their rights.

Reasons for our judgement

We saw that staff had a kind and caring approach towards people they supported. People looked comfortable and relaxed in their home.

During the morning of our inspection a weekly coffee morning had taken place, with relatives and members of the local community invited. The activities coordinator told us that the coffee morning and the raffles they held helped to raise funds: “To buy sensory equipment. We are hoping to buy these soon as we have chosen some small things, like mobile equipment we can use with residents”. “Using sensory equipment would be so helpful, just being able to calm people who are anxious or frustrated would be much better”.

The registered manager told us that they planned to extend their enhanced dementia training for all staff. This would ensure that the dementia care provided in the home followed the recommended dementia standards. This would include the move to non uniforms for staff, and the availability of individual rummage boxes for people so they had access at all times to objects that were relevant to them. Staff we spoke with were enthusiastic about these developments and how this would improve activities and stimulation for people. This meant that people’s welfare was promoted in keeping with published research and guidance.

We read the care records for three people and saw how their care had been provided and managed. We saw that these care records had been reviewed regularly and changes had been recorded which made sure that people's needs had been met as changes had occurred. Staff told us they made sure they were fully up to date with any changes to people’s care needs. This made sure that staff had the information they needed so they could provide consistent care. This meant that care and treatment was planned and delivered in a way that was intended to ensure people's safety and welfare.

We found that staff we spoke with had a good knowledge of the care needs of the people whose care records we had read. This matched the information in the care records and the care we saw people received during our inspection.

We saw that risk assessments had been carried out whenever a risk had been identified for people associated with their conditions. For example, risk assessments for manual handling, eating and drinking were in place where required. We saw that plans were in place that made sure staff had the information they needed on how to manage, support and keep people safe. Staff confirmed this. This meant that people received the care they needed whilst the risk of harm to them was minimised.

The provider may wish to note that we looked at the risk assessments for people where risks had been identified associated with their mobility. We found that where the use of hoists was required to minimise these risks, appropriate slings had not always been available. We found that slings had not been identified or made available for individual use, or that appropriately sized slings had not always been available as needed. Staff we spoke with confirmed this. This meant that there were potential risks associated with shared slings, such as the risk of cross infection and the risk that incorrect size slings may be used. We spoke with the registered manager who assured us that action would be taken to address this.