You are here

Archived: Leacroft

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: 3 May 2013
Date of Publication: 4 June 2013
Inspection Report published 04 June 2013 PDF

Food and drink should meet people's individual dietary needs (outcome 5)

Not met this standard

We checked that people who use this service

  • Are supported to have adequate nutrition and hydration.

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 3 May 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 carers and / or family members and talked with staff.

Our judgement

The provider had not met this regulation. People were not fully protected from the risks of inadequate nutrition.

Reasons for our judgement

There was a recent safeguarding issue where the service was found not be providing suitable meals and snacks for a person, so we followed up this issue.

We spoke with five representatives. They told us they did not often see what food was available. However, what they saw appeared suitable.

During our inspection, we found that people were provided with a choice of fresh fruit. They were also provided with drinks to prevent dehydration.

We also saw that people had a choice of three meals at lunchtime. Food appear to be generally suitable. However, the fish and chips available were processed, dry and lacking in taste. The cook agreed this was the case. Management may wish to note that the provision of fresh food would provide tastier food for people.

We found that a number of people, as assessed in their care plan, were on a soft diet to protect their assessed health needs. There was information in one care plan as to what a soft diet should consist of. The mushy peas that accompanied the fish and chips were not suitable for a soft diet, as detailed in this information. We asked the cook whether she had relevant information to refer to in providing suitable foods. She said that she had this information though she could not locate it at the time. She said she had had no specific training as to this issue. This situation did not promote peoples health needs.

We looked at a person's care plan. We found out the person was being weighed on a regular basis. In February 2013 the person was weighed. Two weeks later the person was weighed again. There was a recorded weight loss of more than six kilos between the two dates. We saw evidence that staff had appropriately referred the person to a dietician to promote his health needs.

In another care plan, we found that another person had been referred to a dietician. This had been carried out months before. Since that date staff had written to the service but had not received a reply. There was no evidence that telephone contact had been made to follow this up. This meant that a person's health needs had not been fully protected.