You are here

All reports

Inspection report

Date of Inspection: 25 September 2013
Date of Publication: 24 October 2013
Inspection Report published 24 October 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 25 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 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

People who used the service understood the care and treatment choices available to them. They expressed their views and were involved in making decisions about their care and treatment. People were given appropriate information and support regarding their care or treatment and they were supported in promoting their independence and community involvement.

People’s diversity, values and human rights were respected.

The manager told us that the service user guide (SUG) and the statement of purpose had been updated and revised into one document. We saw a copy of the document. It was easy to read, written in plain English and printed in large type. We could see that each resident had been given their own copy and this helped them to make a decision as to whether the home was appropriate to meet their needs. The manager told us that prospective residents were offered the chance to spend a few days living in the home as a “test run”.

We spoke to four residents and one relative as a part of this inspection and they told us that they had been given enough information about the home and the services provided.

We inspected three of the resident’s files and on each of these files a comprehensive needs assessment was seen. Information on each of these residents and their needs had been provided by the referring authorities and there was also evidence of the home’s own thorough in house assessment of the resident’s needs prior to a decision being taken regarding admission. It included an assessment of the person’s health, risk factors, mobility and the compatibility of the person together with the current residents. The assessments were completed with the resident, their relative or representative and with the relevant professionals associated with the referral. Residents had signed the assessments and care plans in agreement with them.

Religious and cultural needs were part of the needs assessments seen in the resident’s files and all care plans were based on the information contained in the needs assessments.

A review of the needs assessment was carried out every six months and evidence of this was also seen together with care planning documentation.