You are here

Archived: Rubery Court

The provider of this service changed - see new profile

All reports

Inspection report

Date of Inspection: 8 August 2013
Date of Publication: 3 September 2013
Inspection Report published 03 September 2013 PDF | 75.04 KB

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 carried out a visit on 8 August 2013, observed how people were being cared for, talked with people who use the service and talked with staff. We reviewed information given to us by the provider, reviewed information sent to us by commissioners of services and talked with other regulators or the Department of Health.

Our judgement

People who used the service understood the care, treatment and support choices available to them as much as they were able to.

Reasons for our judgement

We looked at the care plan for one person who used the service and saw that the support plans were written in such a way that the person was at the centre of the plan. We saw that people’s likes and dislikes were recorded. This new manager told us that they planned to review the care plans on a monthly basis with the person who used the service.

Some people who used the service had limited communication skills. The new manager told us that they had plans to arrange quarterly meetings for people who used the service and their relatives. They told us that they wanted to encourage more family involvement by planning garden parties and events within the service. This meant that the service was involving people who could represent the views of people when they were unable to express their own views.

We saw that people were involved in activities around the service, one person was going out, another was baking and someone else had chosen to observe the baking session. Staff told us that if people didn't want to participate in the planned activity then they would be offered something else to do. One person told us they were going to be doing the food shopping for the service the following day.

We saw photographs of the day’s menu on the wall in the kitchen informing people what was on the menu that day. There were other pictorial aids around the service to support people to know which area of the service they were in.

We observed staff interaction with people who used the service and saw that they treated people with dignity and respect. When one person became unsettled we observed staff redirect them in a kind and caring manner. This meant that the service was recognising the diversity of people who used the service and respected their human rights.