You are here

Archived: Woodrow Cottage

The provider of this service changed - see new profile

All reports

Inspection report

Date of Inspection: 3 January 2013
Date of Publication: 20 February 2013
Inspection Report published 20 February 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, reviewed information sent to us by other organisations, carried out a visit on 3 January 2013 and observed how people were being cared for. We talked with people who use the service 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 spoke to three of the seven people living in the home. These people use sign, symbols and pictures as their main means of communication. We have not included their verbal views in this report as we were unable to accurately verify what they told us. We observed how care was being provided to help us understand the experiences of people using the service.

We observed people communicating through a variety of sign language and use of pictures. Our observation of people’s interaction with each other and the staff told us how they were supported to be involved in activity planning. We observed staff appropriately supporting people in their daily routines and activities. For example, this included providing support to people with preparing food and drinks. An individual risk management plan included details on how this support was provided and any risks involved. Support was given to people in ways that upheld their dignity and promoted their independence as much as possible.

Throughout the day we saw a variety of activities being undertaken with people coming and going from the home. Staff supported people to access community activities such as shopping and going to the local pub. The weekly service user meetings recorded people's requests for activities and helped staff to provide people with an opportunity to identify and fulfil their individual requests. A member of staff told us that they “really enjoyed coming to work and seeing the service user achieve a new goal."

We saw staff speak to each person using the service in the same respectful manner and gave them the same level of attentiveness.

We looked at three people’s care files. These were organised into three sections, were individualised and reflected their personal preferences and how they expressed themselves and communicated with others. Staff we spoke with gave examples of how they supported people to make choices and how these were regularly reviewed, for example through weekly house meetings. On the day of the visit we saw people being supported to make a choice with food and activities. Any support required was described in their care files.

The manager described the process that was in place to take account of each individual's capacity to consent and make choices. For one person the home had made adaptations to more closely observe a person at times when they might be at risk of injury. In doing this the home had considered all the options on how to ensure this person's safety whilst respecting their dignity and privacy. The process had involved the person, their family and external agencies and was documented in the person's risk management plan.