You are here

All reports

Inspection report

Date of Inspection: 23 October 2012
Date of Publication: 27 November 2012
Inspection Report published 27 November 2012 PDF | 75.48 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 reviewed all the information we have gathered about Trinity House Annexe, looked at the personal care or treatment records of people who use the service, carried out a visit on 23 October 2012 and observed how people were being cared for. We talked with people who use the service, talked with staff and talked with stakeholders.

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 were able to express their views, so far as they were able to do so, and were involved in making decisions about their care, treatment and support. We observed that care plans were signed by people indicating their consent to treatment and support. People were treated with dignity and respect and staff were friendly and polite. Relatives of the people who use the service told us that they felt their relative was treated with dignity and respect.

Staff were able to give examples of how they treated people with dignity and respect, such as knocking on people’s doors before entering, which we observed during our visit. We saw good interactions between staff and people who use the service.

People were given choices to participate in a variety of activities such as cooking, which they stated made them feel “more independent,” We saw that people’s rooms were personalised and this was encouraged by staff.

People were involved in making decisions about their care. The residents meetings provided them with this platform and records confirmed their views were taken into account in the way the service was provided. The manager told us that they had an open door policy and people confirmed they could speak with staff at any time.

People confirmed that they had received support with daily living tasks, such as cooking, budgeting and housekeeping, which meant that they were supported in promoting their independence and community involvement.