You are here

St Bridget's Residential Home Requires improvement

We are carrying out a review of quality at St Bridget's Residential Home. We will publish a report when our review is complete. Find out more about our inspection reports.
All reports

Inspection report

Date of Inspection: 12 March 2013
Date of Publication: 17 April 2013
Inspection Report published 17 April 2013 PDF

People should be given the medicines they need when they need them, and in a safe way (outcome 9)

Not met this standard

We checked that people who use this service

  • Will have their medicines at the times they need them, and in a safe way.
  • Wherever possible will have information about the medicine being prescribed made available to them or others acting on their behalf.

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 12 March 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 were not protected against the risks associated with medicines because the provider had not got appropriate arrangements in place to manage medicines.

Reasons for our judgement

We looked at the medication administration records (MARs) for each person who lived at the home. We saw that a system was in place to monitor that staff had completed the MARs chart appropriately. For example, that staff had signed for the medication they had administered. We found that the home had maintained a record of staff signatures at the front of the medication records of those staff trained to administer medication. We spoke to one staff member who did not work directly for the home and they confirmed that they were not allowed to administer medication.

Records showed that staff who administered medication had received training in 2012.

We observed one staff member administer medication to one person. We saw that they washed their hands before handling the medication. We heard them explain to the person what they were doing, and we saw that they gave the person time to take the medication comfortably.

Records for one person showed that they had been prescribed a topical cream to be applied three times a day. We saw that it had been applied only once a day, in the morning. Staff had recorded that it was offered each time but that at midday and in the evening it was not required rather than that it had been refused. The manager explained that the person would only accept the cream in the morning. The manager could not confirm that the person had been given sufficient information to understand the consequence of their decision to not complete the course as prescribed. The manager had not discussed the person's decision with their general practitioner.

We found that an entry which stated 'as directed' did not have clear guidance as to its usage.

One entry had two signatures which we saw had been crossed out. Whilst none of the medication had been issued, so therefore had not been given, it indicated that staff had signed the form before administering the medication.

People had their morning medication stored in individual locked metal cabinets in their rooms. However, the keys were kept on top of the cabinets. This meant that access to medication was not secure. We checked three people's medication stored in their cabinets. We found them to be correct.