You are here

All reports

Inspection report

Date of Inspection: 22 August 2013
Date of Publication: 24 September 2013
Inspection Report published 24 September 2013 PDF | 77.27 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 looked at the personal care or treatment records of people who use the service, carried out a visit on 22 August 2013, observed how people were being cared for and talked with people who use the service. We talked with staff and reviewed information given to us by the provider.

Our judgement

Care and treatment was planned and delivered in a way that was intended to ensure people's safety and welfare.

Reasons for our judgement

When we reviewed the care files of people living at York Road, we found that thorough assessments had been carried out in relation to people's care needs and daily support. Details of health conditions, medications required and their wider support network, for example social worker details, where all recorded.

We looked at daily routines of people living in the home and the support they received to take part in activities in the wider community. When we spent time talking to people, they told us how weekly shopping was done and how each person had a responsibility in relation to the task. For example, making a list of items needed, packing of groceries when paid for and putting groceries away when they arrived home. From this we could see that autonomy and independence was encouraged by staff and enjoyed by people living at York Road.

When we looked at care and support files, we noted that people's medium and long term goals were recorded. For example one person wanted to be more involved in cooking meals. They had expressed interest in a cookery course, which they had attended. This demonstrated that the provider listened to people when seeking their views on how they could be supported in everyday life.

We looked at how each person's daily support was planned. Information on a person's interests and hobbies was taken from their support plan and set out in a weekly calendar of events. We found there was a regular disco that people attended and a coffee shop visit on a weekly basis, where people would meet with their friends. Some people took part in community walks in the area. There was also involvement with a local church group, which people said they enjoyed.

The provider may wish to note that whilst we found evidence of planned activities for people, adherence to plans was inconsistent. When reviewing people's calendars we noted that some planned activities were not being undertaken. For example, the calendar of one person described how they would go swimming on a weekly basis, yet the person had not attended this activity for some weeks. When we asked the temporary manager about this it was apparent there was no real reason as to why the activity had ceased. On the day we visited the home, we found people were due to go horse riding, but the activity had been cancelled in advance due to the stable owners being on holiday. No substitute activity, or alternative provider of an activity had been sourced for people. This meant people living at the home were disappointed and their routine was disrupted. At the time of our inspection, the provider’s quality development lead was reviewing how care plans were put into practice by support staff. We highlighted the above findings and were assured that this was something that was being addressed.