You are here

Archived: Kingsthorpe View Care Home Good

The provider of this service changed - see old profile

The provider of this service changed - see new profile

All reports

Inspection report

Date of Inspection: 5 June 2013
Date of Publication: 10 July 2013
Inspection Report published 10 July 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)

Not met 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 5 June 2013, checked how people were cared for at each stage of their treatment and care and talked with carers and / or family members. We talked with staff, reviewed information sent to us by other regulators or the Department of Health and talked with other regulators or the Department of Health.

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.

Our judgement

People’s privacy, dignity and independence were not consistently respected.

Reasons for our judgement

We spoke to a relative of a person who was visiting the home and they said, “From what I have seen my relative is treated with dignity.” Another relative said, “I do feel my relative’s privacy is respected.”

We observed activities taking place on the day of our inspection; and a number of people were able to get involved in the lounge area. Some were able to participate in clapping when people came into the home to sing with people using the service.

We looked at the care plans for eight people who were using the service to make sure these covered people’s individual and diverse needs. A care plan should document a person’s needs and how staff can meet those needs. People’s individual preferences had been discussed and documented including likes, dislikes and religious preference within individual care plans. We also saw a complaints policy displayed on the notice board. This meant people using the service and their relatives were provided with information detailing who to contact if they had any concerns.

To help us understand the experiences of people living in the home we used our SOFI (Short Observational Framework for Inspection) tool during the visit. The SOFI tool allows us to spend time watching what is going on in a service and helps us to record how people spend their time, the type of support they get and whether they have positive experiences.

We observed a few positive interactions with people using the service during the lunch period, including an offer to cut a person’s food so they could eat more easily. One member of staff offered a person an alternative meal as they did not appear to want to eat the food which had initially been provided. We also observed a member of staff assist when a person’s dignity was compromised.

Menu choices were displayed on a board within the main dining area of the home; however the information displayed was incorrect. We also observed four separate members of staff ask the same question about one person’s meal choice. This meant the meal time period we observed was disorganised and people were not being provided with the correct information to make a choice.

One member of staff supporting a person to eat explained what was on each spoonful; however they kept glancing at the television whilst providing support. We also observed the manager of the service and three members of staff talking about a number of people using the service in the middle of the lounge area, in the presence of people using the service. This meant people were not being treated with respect.

We found staff were talking to other staff whilst supporting people and we also observed some staff carrying out tasks without communicating with the person. This included a member of staff who moved a chair whilst a person was using it.

We observed one member of staff in the main dining area talking about who was going to “feed” a person and provided little interaction when helping a person to eat. In the lounge area we observed a member of staff bang on the window and pull a face at someone outside in the car park. This member of staff turned their back on the lounge and specifically the people within their care in order to do this. We also observed one person using the service trying to get the attention of a member of staff who ignored them. This use of language and lack of interaction meant staff were not respecting and involving the people using the service.

Overall we found people who were using the service were not consistently treated with consideration and respect.