You are here

Wheatfield Court Requires improvement

The provider of this service changed - see old profile

All reports

Inspection report

Date of Inspection: 25 June 2012
Date of Publication: 24 August 2012
Inspection Report - DN published 24 August 2012 PDF | 53.6 KB

Overview

Inspection carried out on 25 June 2012

During a themed inspection looking at Dignity and Nutrition

This inspection was a themed inspection focussing on dignity and nutrition.

People told us what it was like to live at this home and described how they were treated by staff and their involvement in making choices about their care. They also told us about the quality and choice of food and drink available. This was because this inspection was part of a themed inspection programme to assess whether older people living in care homes are treated with dignity and respect and whether their nutritional needs are met.

The inspection team was led by a CQC inspector joined by an “expert by experience”; people who have experience of using services and who can provide that perspective.

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

We did a SOFI observation of the lunch meal time in one of the three dining rooms. It was evident, that carers and people who used services interacted very well with each other. Carers and nurses ensured people were able to contribute to choosing what they wanted to eat. All people were given the opportunity to voice their views and opinions and staff assisted people sensitively and at a pace suitable to the individual.

During this themed inspection visit, we spoke to nine people who used the service and three relatives. This is what they told us: People who used the service said they were given appropriate information and support regarding their care or treatment. Each person had a written contract and a statement of their terms and conditions with the provider. No-one had moved into the home without having had their personal needs assessed and had been assured by the senior staff these would be met.

People told us they had been involved and had contributed to the pre-admission assessment. People told us their privacy and dignity was upheld by staff working in the home.

The nine people we spoke with said they had a choice of at least two hot meals each day. People said portion sizes were good, sometimes too big. They said second helping were always available if they wanted more.

One person said “We get three large meals each day, and we are offered snacks between meals. Sometimes this is too much, but the food always very good.”

People told us they felt safe living here. They said they could express themselves freely and without fear. People told us they would know who to speak to if they had any concerns at all.

People told us they were well supported by the staff team and were happy with the care, treatment and support they received.

We spoke with three visitors, and without exception, they all told us the care their relatives received was excellent. They said staff kept them fully informed and were very knowledgeable about their relatives support needs.

One relative told us the nursing staff were very good at keeping her informed about her relative’s health and wellbeing. She said “She could see from the care records her relative was receiving the care she needed.”