You are here

All reports

Inspection report

Date of Inspection: 25 January 2013
Date of Publication: 2 March 2013
Inspection Report published 2 March 2013 PDF

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 25 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.

Our judgement

People’s privacy, dignity and independence were respected.

Reasons for our judgement

People who use the service understood the care and treatment choices available to them. For example, we saw that when someone started with the agency, the provider met with them to discuss in detail what their needs were. The agency only provided personal care for one person at the time of our inspection but may expand in the future. The manager said that if possible family members would be asked to attend to ensure that all aspects of care were covered. At present there were no external advocates available for the one person receiving the service. There had been external health professional/advocates in the past when the person was attending social settings and the provider was considering other opportunities for the person to be linked to another advocate for the near future. We spoke to the person receiving the service and they felt they were fully aware of what their needs were in relation to personal care and these were being met. The service provides a “Service User Guide” and brochure for each person receiving the service in an appropriate format for individuals.

The agency provided prompting with medication only and monitoring of the person’s health care needs in relation to medication. The provider had assisted the person to administer medication for short term topical prescriptions for the skin or eyes recently and that they asked the person how they would like them given. Records showed there was a system in place to ensure that the person remembered not to lock their door before the medication had been given in the evening for example. Additionally, the best time for giving the last dose before bed had been discussed with the person.

We saw that regular medication was given at a set time and the person knew when they would be visited. We saw there were laminated sheets showing photographs of who was on duty so they would know which member of staff would be visiting every day in a format that the person could understand. There was a small staff team who had provided supported living services to the person for a long time and who were able to show that they were knowledgeable about the person’s needs and preferences as a whole. The provider told us that the person receiving the personal care service would be able to change agencies at any time should they request, for example it they wanted to be cared for by only male staff. The Supported Living service and the care agency were separate entities which enabled people to have that choice. This is important when the landlord and the agency manage both services as in this case.

There was an agreed system of how staff should enter the person’s home and the person knew that staff would ring the doorbell and wait for a reply before entering. We saw this happening. The person’s home was within a supported living setting with a direct call system to the office at all times if they needed assistance. The person we spoke with confirmed this and showed us how it worked and told us that they felt confident that they knew what was going on. We were able to speak with the person in private. The person showed us the medication records kept in their home and explained what personal care they received demonstrating that they were fully involved making decisions about it. The provider told us they had spoken with the person about future personal care arrangements should their needs increase to ensure that there was a plan in place involving health professionals.

People were supported in promoting their independence and community involvement. We saw support plans included what people could do for themselves in relation to medication, to alert staff and ensure that peoples’ independence was promoted.

People were able to change the times of their visits such as topical medication, for example cream or drops for skin and eyes in line with their prescriptions and add tasks as needed. As the agency was small, people were able to benefit from a flexible service. People we spoke to