You are here

Archived: Allied Healthcare Brent

This service is now registered at a different address - see new profile

All reports

Inspection report

Date of Inspection: 29 January 2013
Date of Publication: 27 February 2013
Inspection Report published 27 February 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, reviewed information sent to us by other organisations, carried out a visit on 29 January 2013 and talked with people who use the service. We talked with carers and / or family members 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

We spoke with seven people who use the service by phone. They informed us that they had been treated with respect and dignity. Their views can be summarised by the following comment, “My carer is respectful and very good. I am happy with them.”

Care staff we spoke with were aware of the importance of treating people with respect and dignity. They said they had been informed during their training and at staff meetings to treat all people with respect. The agency had a policy for ensuring equality and valuing diversity. The Operational Support Manager informed us that many of the care staff came from the same cultural background as people who use the service and were therefore able to understand their cultural needs.

People who use the service indicated that the agency had consulted with them and were aware of their preferences and needs. Care documentation contained information regarding the choices and routines of people.

The agency had a service user guide and people had signed to indicate they were provided with a resource pack. This was also confirmed by people. They said they knew who to contact if they wished to discuss their care or if they had any concerns. In addition, the agency had a newsletter which provided information on care issues and updates on the management of the agency.