You are here

Archived: St George's Nursing Home Requires improvement

All reports

Inspection report

Date of Inspection: 10 September 2013
Date of Publication: 27 September 2013
Inspection Report published 27 September 2013 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 10 September 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 people who use the service, talked with carers and / or family members, talked with staff and reviewed information sent to us by commissioners of services. We reviewed information sent to us by other regulators or the Department of Health, reviewed information sent to us by other authorities, talked with commissioners of services and talked with other regulators or the Department of Health. We talked with other authorities.

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 privacy, dignity and involvement in their care was respected.

Reasons for our judgement

When we arrived to complete our inspection, the atmosphere at the home was relaxed and homely. Some people who lived at the home were dressed and eating their breakfast whilst other people were in bed. We saw that people responded well to staff, who were caring in the support they provided.

We spoke with one person who lived at the home who told us:” I like it here, the staff are very caring. They always respect my wishes and are never rude to me.”

Some of the people who lived at the home were not able to talk directly with us because of their health needs so we used different methods to see whether they received the care and support they needed. We used the Short Observational Framework for Inspection (SOFI). SOFI is a specific way of observing care to help us understand the experiences of people who could not talk with us. We found that people that lived at the home received care and support that met their needs and that they responded positively to interactions from staff.

We saw that staff spoke with people in a respectful way and listened to their wishes, which were then acted upon. For example, one person chose to sit in the lounge to have their meal. Staff made sure that the person was comfortable with the appropriate support in place to meet their wishes. We also saw that staff asked people what choices what they would like to eat and where they would like to eat their meals.

We saw many examples of where staff respected and promoted the dignity of people who lived at the home. We saw that people were dressed in clothes that reflected their age, gender and personalities. This included preferred hairstyles and jewellery. We saw examples of visitors to the home who spent time with people in private in their rooms or in one of the communal areas. We saw people were able to make choices and staff respected this. These were some of the many examples that we observed where people were clearly treated as individuals and this was their home.

We found that the work continued to ensure that people were able to express their views and were involved in the decisions about their care and treatment. One person who lived at the home told us that they felt comfortable to talk to the staff about their views. However, where people did not have the capacity to do this we saw records where consent had been gained from people’s representatives in their best interests. The management team told us that discussions with people’s representatives were an on-going task. This meant that people who were unable to express their views and be involved in their care and treatment had their rights protected.

People's diversity, values and human rights were respected. We found that work was on-going to ensure that care plans included information about people’s life history and any faith or cultural needs. This ensured that care plans were written in a way which focused on the whole person, rather than a list of tasks.