You are here

Archived: The Providence Projects - Percy

The provider of this service changed - see new profile

All reports

Inspection report

Date of Inspection: 6, 7 August 2013
Date of Publication: 7 September 2013
Inspection Report published 07 September 2013 PDF | 87.42 KB

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 6 August 2013 and 7 August 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 and talked with staff.

We were supported on this inspection by an expert-by-experience. This is a person who has personal experience of using or caring for someone who uses this type of care service.

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.

We spoke with 13 people who received help and support from The Providence Projects including one person who was accommodated at Connaught. They all told us they had the opportunity to visit the service in order to help them decide whether they wanted to start a treatment programme. Several people told us that they did not take up the opportunity to visit but had looked at the provider’s website (www.providenceproject.org). They said it provided them with all the information they needed about what the service had to offer.

People were given a “clients handbook” that included information about the treatment programmes, timetables, accommodation, confidentiality, rights, equal opportunities, access to records and the Providence Projects complaints procedure.

People expressed their views and were involved in making decisions about their care and treatment.

We case tracked four of the people we spoke with. This meant that we looked at records the service kept about them including their care/support plans. We also spoke with staff who provided counselling, arranged therapy sessions and or supported people with practical issues such as obtaining benefits, budgeting or visiting doctors, dentist and opticians. This was in order to see if people received the support they needed and in accordance with their care/support plans.

The records we looked at showed that people had been involved in discussions about and consented to a number of matters. They included management of their own medication, the release of information to specified individuals or organisations, some physical activity and a treatment contract. The latter included some limitations or constraints imposed on people. For example they were required to always, “Be accompanied and supported by at least two peers at all times or as directed. This includes while going into shops.”

People we spoke with confirmed they had discussed signed up and agreed to their treatment programmes and any constraints imposed on them. Some people said they initially found some of the constraints irritating but understood and appreciated the need for them.

One person said, “I was happy to sign up and the longer I have been here the more I have seen how beneficial the restrictions on us and the structure of the programme are”.

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

All the people we spoke with told us they were treated with dignity and respect. They said staff listened to them if told us if they had concerns and they had many opportunities and means to raise them. They included submitting written requests or complaints, house and community meetings and one to one counselling meetings.

One person said, “At the end of each day they ask if we have any issues”.

Another person said, “In general we are treated very well”.

A third person said, “The staff are fantastic, they are very kind and fair. They treat me like a person”.

People told us that there were gender groups organised and they said these were helpful. One person said, “Although I did not find the group helpful I know others did. Issues were raised in the group that would not be discussed in a mixed group”.

We spoke with two people who told us their specific cultural needs were accommodated. One person told us that a separate refrigerator had been provided for them at their accommodation to enable them to comply with kosher dietary requirements. They also told us that staff helped them to shop for food at a specialist food shop.

The other person told us that they were able to attend Friday prayers because arrangements had been made with a local Mosque.

Other people told us there were groups that went to local churches on a Sunday.

Staff told us that they had arranged the installation of small medical refrigerators at properties when people undertaking a treatment programme had been insulin controlled diabetics. Thi