You are here

Archived: Strathmore House

The provider of this service changed - see old profile

All reports

Inspection report

Date of Inspection: 2 January 2013
Date of Publication: 22 January 2013
Inspection Report published 22 January 2013 PDF | 73.27 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 2 January 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 used the Short Observational Framework for Inspection (SOFI). SOFI is a specific way of observing care to help us understand the experience of people who could not talk with us.

We also spoke with a visiting healthcare professional.

Our judgement

People’s privacy, dignity and independence were respected.

Reasons for our judgement

People who use the service were given appropriate information and support regarding their support or care. People were supported in promoting their independence.

During our last inspection of 08 August 2012 we found there was evidence of non-compliance with respecting and involving people. The provider wrote to tell us what remedial action was taken to become compliant. During this inspection of 02 January 2012 we found evidence to support this.

We observed how one of the people who used the service was supported with their mobility by means of a wheelchair. We found that staff actively involved the person throughout the procedure. This was done in a measured and informative way when they assisted the person to transfer from their armchair to a wheelchair. The person’s physical comfort was also ensured throughout the procedure. We saw the person was settled in the wheelchair when they were assisted from their room to the dining room. We saw that staff spoke with the person when taking them to the dining room.

From speaking with staff and examination of three out of 17 sets of people’s care records we noted that people’s interests were noted and action was taken to accommodate people’s interests where possible. This included the provision of board games and providing a person with their own daily newspaper. During our visit we noted two of the people who used the service were supported to play a game of dominoes. Two other people were engaged in holding soft toy cats. One of the people said that they had named their toy cat ‘Timmy’ and demonstrated to us their affection for the toy.

The home’s newsletter for December 2012 noted that the home had received external entertainers and guests, including singers and a visit by a local mayor.

The manager advised us that records of other activities that people had engaged in were not available for our inspection to demonstrate the improvement of the range of choices of activities. However, people who were able to verbally tell us said that they were satisfied with the choices of activities available.

Senior staff reported to us that remedial action was taken to improve the communal bathing facilities to promote people’s dignity. However, we were told that the timescale for completion of this work was not yet known. One of the people we spoke with said that their privacy and dignity were respected when they were supported with their person care needs which took place in the communal bathing facilities of the home.

All bedroom and communal toilet and bathing facilities had lockable doors. Keys to people’s own rooms were available although a person who was spoken with said that they did not want to hold the key to their own room.

For part of the inspection we used the Short Observational Framework for Inspection (SOFI). SOFI is a specific way of observing care to help us understand the experience of people who could not talk with us.

We carried out our SOFI during the lunch time period and found that people were treated in an attentive and respectful way. People who used the service were supported and encouraged to eat their meal. They were also offered choices and alternative menu options of what they would like to eat and drink. Information regarding the menu and drink choices was presented in a way that people showed they understood.

People’s independence was promoted with eating and drinking. Where people were less independent, they were supported by staff to do so. We noted that this support was carried out on a one-to-one basis and staff interacted with the person in a social manner when supporting the person with their food and drink.

To protect people’s clothing from spillage of food and drink, appropriate protective cloth tabards were available for people to wear whilst eating their lunch.