You are here

Archived: Cranstoun - Sisters Avenue

All reports

Inspection report

Date of Inspection: 7 November 2013
Date of Publication: 24 December 2013
Inspection Report published 24 December 2013 PDF | 73.51 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 7 November 2013, talked with people who use the service and talked with staff.

Our judgement

People’s privacy, dignity and independence were respected. Their 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 using the service told us that they were treated with dignity and respect by the staff who work at Sisters Avenue. Comments included "I get on with each and every one", "the staff are polite not rude", "all great", "the people are good here" and "patient and supportive".

We asked each individual if they had been given appropriate information about the service and the support provided when they first started to use the service. The majority of people told us that they had been able to visit the service before coming to stay there saying "I came and visited, they told me about the rules", "there were no surprises" and "I had my assessment here, they told me quite precisely what to expect". One person told us "I got all my paperwork - contract, the house rules and license agreement".

We saw that information about the service was displayed on a noticeboard in the entrance hallway including a copy of the residents handbook, a statement of clients rights, the house rules and procedures for room searches. A whiteboard was also used to ensure people had up to date information about the service including any expected visitors or events.

People using the service told us that they were able to come and go as they pleased with a key pad system in operation providing secure access to the property during the day. A concierge service operated overnight with a door buzzer system in operation from 10pm.

We looked at the care records for three people during our visit. Each file contained an assessment by the service looking at areas such as individual needs and goals, history and relationships. An admission checklist was used by staff to go through information with each person when they first came to the service. We saw that this document was signed by each individual to confirm that they had received documents such as the residents handbook and licence agreement.

We saw people could express their views and were involved in making decisions about their care and treatment. A house meeting was held each week that people using the service were all expected to attend. Comments included "the house meeting works, we can air our views" and "the meeting happens every week". Minutes were kept of these meetings that included discussion of topics such as Health and Safety, security, cleaning and maintenance of the premises.

Questionnaires had been supplied to people using the service in September 2013 to gather their views of the service. One person told us that they had recently become the service user representative and now attended regular organisational forums to represent people living at Sisters Avenue.