You are here

Archived: 82 Park Street

The provider of this service changed - see new profile

All reports

Inspection report

Date of Inspection: 1 November 2011
Date of Publication: 28 November 2011
Inspection Report published 28 November 2011 PDF

People should get safe and appropriate care that meets their needs and supports their rights (outcome 4)

Meeting this standard

We checked that people who use this service

  • Experience effective, safe and appropriate care, treatment and support that meets their needs and protects their rights.

How this check was done

Our judgement

People have their care needs met through careful, detailed care planning and review. Members of staff understand how people with autism should be supported.

Overall, we found that 82 Park Street was meeting this essential standard.

User experience

People had detailed care plans which set out how their needs were to be met. Care plans were accessible to people because they had symbols, pictures and words. The daily notes reflected those aspects of each person’s care plan which staff reported on. Risks of daily living were being assessed. People were encouraged to take measured risks to increase their self esteem, gain life skills and reduce risk of social isolation. The assessments were linked to the care plans, showing how people would be supported to achieve a positive outcome. Each person had an individual fire evacuation plan.

People had health action plans which detailed all aspects of their health and welfare needs. The service had sought information from families, previous carers and healthcare professionals before people moved in. People were weighed when they moved in. Then they were weighed at other times, depending on their nutritional risk assessment. There was information about how people expressed when they were in pain and what staff should do to support them. The manager told us that people’s sense of touch, smell, hearing, heat and sight were taken into consideration in their health action plans.

Behaviour support plans showed how people expressed agitation or anger. There was clear guidance on recognising how to reduce people’s responses to situations, changes or actions of others. Members of staff had trained in managing and reducing behaviours. Following incidents, the manager met with staff to discuss the issues and the way forward.

People’s care plans had been reviewed and updated as their needs changed and members of staff got to know them better. Everyone had a keyworker. They were required to write a progress report to the manager each month.

People’s ability to manage their own medicines had been assessed. One person showed us their medicine cabinet in their bedroom. They said that they called a member of staff when they were ready to take their medicines. They showed us the medicine administration record where they signed to say that they had taken the medicines. The person checked each medicine with the member of staff against the medicine administration record. They also recorded the temperature of the cabinet each day. The manager told us that people were being supported to be more independent with managing their medicines.

Other evidence

We asked about people’s choice when being supported in intimate personal care by male and female staff. Members of staff told us that it had been made clear to them at induction what care and support they could provide to people of a different gender. People’s choice was noted in their care plans for personal care. The manager told us that she had not yet received the full range of the new provider’s policies. She said she would request the gender working policy.