You are here

Archived: Castle Park

The provider of this service changed - see old profile

All reports

Inspection report

Date of Inspection: 7 January 2014
Date of Publication: 22 February 2014
Inspection Report published 22 February 2014 PDF | 82.58 KB

The service should have quality checking systems to manage risks and assure the health, welfare and safety of people who receive care (outcome 16)

Meeting this standard

We checked that people who use this service

  • Benefit from safe quality care, treatment and support, due to effective decision making and the management of risks to their health, welfare and safety.

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 January 2014, observed how people were being cared for and talked with people who use the service. We talked with commissioners of services.

We were supported on this inspection by an expert-by-experience. This is a person who has personal experience of using or caring for someone who uses this type of care service.

Our judgement

The provider had an effective system to regularly assess and monitor the quality of service that people receive.

Reasons for our judgement

All the people we spoke with told us they had not attended the residents’ meeting and there was little feedback from relatives. The provider should note we saw records that showed meetings for relatives were held monthly but on each occasion in 2013 the record stated that no one attended. This indicates the service is not proactive in making such meetings meaningful or exploring other ways of obtaining feedback.

The manager told us that a survey for people using the service had been recently undertaken but the results of these were still in the process of being analysed. We saw that staff meetings were held regularly, the most recent being in November 2013. We also saw that daily briefings for staff were recorded.

Our previous visit in July 2013 found that some audits in relation to infection control were not being acted on. We found this had improved and that cleaning and room audits now showed that any areas requiring attention had been rectified.

We saw that the provider had well established quality assurance procedures that included monthly audits of key records such as medication records, regular meetings with staff, reviews of the support people using the service received and a clear complaints procedure. Records we saw confirmed that audits of medication records were up to date. The area manager also undertook monthly quality visits and identified areas for actions; for example, the report for December 2013 stated that fluid and food charts were not completed consistently. We found this had improved on this visit and the records we saw were up to date. We also saw daily checks of the environment were undertaken, were up to date and any issues requiring attention were reported.

Records also confirmed that staff supervision took place and we saw that these occurred approximately monthly with the most recent being recorded as December 2013. This meant that staff received regular guidance and support.