You are here

Archived: 74 Sir Evelyn Road

The provider of this service changed - see old profile

All reports

Inspection report

Date of Inspection: 20 August 2013
Date of Publication: 7 September 2013
Inspection Report published 07 September 2013 PDF | 78.14 KB

People should get safe and appropriate care that meets their needs and supports their rights (outcome 4)

Meeting this standard

We checked that people who use this service

  • Experience effective, safe and appropriate care, treatment and support that meets their needs and protects their rights.

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 20 August 2013, observed how people were being cared for and talked with staff.

Our judgement

Care and treatment was planned and delivered in a way that was intended to ensure people's safety and welfare.

Reasons for our judgement

Care and treatment was planned and delivered in a way that was intended to ensure people's safety and welfare.

People's care needs were assessed before they received a service. We looked at the care records of two people who lived in the home. We saw that people visited the home before they moved in and the service had received various records about the people’s assessed needs. This meant that the provider had the information needed to make a decision about whether the service could meet people’s needs.

We saw that more information had been obtained about people after they moved into the home, for example, records had been completed of people’s 'life history' and relationships. Also checks had been carried out, for example in relation to behaviours. This information helped staff to get to know the person well and provide them with the right care and support.

The home had a risk management approach that empowered people to take assessed risks and make decisions. The home ensured that support was given in a person centred way, and produced plans with people that included promoting their health, financial arrangements and setting goals. We saw that travel plans for people were in place. People who needed support with going out into the community had support workers assigned specifically to assist them to achieve these goals.

Records were maintained of regular contact with key health and social care professionals.

These showed that people's health care needs were met and included guidance for supporting people who were prescribed medication for controlling seizures as and when necessary. We saw training certificates in files, which confirmed that members of staff were trained and competent in administering the medication.

All the people who used the service were registered with a GP and there were records of regular contact with their GPs, dentists, chiropodists and with an ophthalmologist where appropriate. There were behavioural support plans on how to support people with behavioural issues. We saw that records indicated that medication reviews were undertaken by the GP. People who lived in the home were supported by staff or relatives to all of their health appointments.

Staff were knowledgeable about how to support each person in ways that were right for them. The members of staff spoken with on the day of the visit were able to discuss the needs of people who used the service and the ways in which individuals were supported. Staff told us, “People have different needs, so the support needs are different”. “We ask the person about their needs, use pictures and use Makaton. We refer to their care plans/support plan in order to meet their needs”. Makaton is a language program that uses signs and symbols to help people to communicate. It is designed to support spoken language and the signs and symbols are used with speech, in spoken word order. This meant that people experienced effective, safe and appropriate care, treatment and support that met their needs and protected their rights.

The provider may find it useful to note that we were unable to track one person's goal of going swimming, which was indicated as their wish in their annual review. There were no records from planning the goal to actual implementation. This meant that the person might not have been supported to fulfil their desired goal.