You are here

Sue Ryder - Leckhampton Court Good

All reports

Inspection report

Date of Inspection: 13 December 2011
Date of Publication: 23 December 2011
Inspection Report published 23 December 2011 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

Our judgement

Overall, we found Sue Ryder Leckhampton Court Hospice was compliant with this essential standard.

People who come to Leckhampton Court for care and support are treated with privacy, dignity and respect. People are given information and support to enable them to make choices about their care and treatment.

User experience

We asked people who use the service if they had all the information that they needed. People said that they were given as much information as they wanted but that "this is done sensitively and staff know how and when to tell me things." One person said "they don't bombard me with information, just what I need to know." We saw a number of leaflets and information booklets for people to take away. There was also information provided for family members and next of kin.

People told us that staff "went to great lengths" to make sure that dignity and privacy was maintained. We were told that screens were used for personal or intimate care and we observed this in practice. One person said that "staff make sure that people are able to be very dignified here and makes it very comfortable for us all. There is never any embarrassment."

We observed care delivered with dignity and respect. One patient told us that "although I don't really mind, I have not been asked if I would prefer a female carer." Another patient said "I don't recall being asked, but I would have said if I did and they would have listened."

Other evidence

We looked at a number of care records to see if people had been given the opportunity to express their views and be involved in making decisions about their care. We saw from the care plan notes that the patient or their family had been given clear information about the treatment and care that was being provided. The service, particularly in the day care hospice, supported people to maintain their independence and to continue to live at home.

We saw in care records that there had been some decisions taken about whether to resuscitate someone who had a cardiac or respiratory arrest. We found that the forms were not always fully completed and if they were not complete, there was no evidence of the decision being discussed with the patient. We talked, however, with one patient where a form was not fully completed, and were told that the decision had been discussed with them by the doctor.

The form that the hospice used to record the discussion or conclusion about resuscitation did not allow for any multi-disciplinary discussion details to be documented or show how the decision had been conveyed to the patient or the family.

Some people who came to stay in the inpatient ward were accommodated in rooms with one or two other people. We asked staff how privacy and dignity was maintained in the event of someone's death. We were told that when a person died, the curtains were closed around that person but also the other people in the room. The doors on other patient rooms were then closed when the body was removed along any corridors. A member of staff always walked ahead of the staff removing the body to ensure that this was done with as much privacy and dignity as possible. The body was also transported in a lift that was not for other patient or visitor use.