You are here

St Aidan Lodge Residential Care Home Good

All reports

Inspection report

Date of Inspection: 30 April 2014
Date of Publication: 27 June 2014
Inspection Report published 27 June 2014 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 30 April 2014, 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 and talked with staff.

Our judgement

People’s privacy, dignity and independence were respected.

People’s views and experiences were taken into account in the way the service was provided and delivered in relation to their care.

Reasons for our judgement

We observed during our visit people who used the service were treated with respect and dignity. One person told us “They (the staff) are lovely.” We observed a lunchtime meal and saw people were given choices about what they wanted to eat and drink. We saw people were encouraged to eat their meals and were offered assistance where needed. When people needed help staff sat with them and spent time talking with them and encouraging them.

We saw people going to live at the home were fully involved in planning the care that was to be provided. Where people did not have the ability to make decisions for themselves we saw relatives or someone who knew them well was asked to help in planning their care. People were able to make choices about the level of care they wanted meaning they were supported to make choices and remain independent.

Throughout our inspection we witnessed staff speaking with people in a polite and friendly manner, adjusting their positions so they were at the same level as the person they were speaking with and adjusting the way they spoke to suit the person they were speaking to.

People’s care plans showed they were asked if they preferred to be cared for by same sex staff. We saw staff in the home knocked on doors before entering people’s private rooms and communal bathrooms and toilets. When personal care was being carried out we saw doors were closed and locked, where appropriate. This meant people’s dignity was protected and they were treated with respect.

We saw people who used the service were given choices about various aspects of life within the home. The provider had surveys which were given to people who used the service, people’s relatives and other professionals that visited the home.

In addition the manager had a notice board in the home which gave details of the complaints procedure and other people that could be contacted if there were concerns about the service. This included details for the local authority and the Care Quality Commission. All these things meant people were involved in the running of the service.

We saw people’s care plans included choices about voting and mail. People were asked if they would like to obtain a postal vote for parliamentary elections or if they preferred to attend the local polling station. In addition they were also given choices about how they wanted their personal mail handled and if they wanted to open it themselves or if they would prefer someone to open it on their behalf. This meant people’s choices were listened to and respected.