You are here

Coundon Manor Care Home Good

All reports

Inspection report

Date of Inspection: 10 December 2012
Date of Publication: 5 January 2013
Inspection Report published 5 January 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 10 December 2012, 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 people who use the service, talked with carers and / or family members and talked with staff.

Our judgement

People’s privacy and dignity was not always being maintained.

Reasons for our judgement

We saw that people had access to some information about the home to help them make a decision on whether to live there. This included a leaflet about the service. The provider may wish to note that the information leaflet did not contain accurate information.

We spoke with three relatives about the home. They felt staff communicated with them when needed. They told us they were able to visit any time and were made to feel welcome. We spoke with eight people living in the home. Some felt they were involved in their care and others said they were not. Comments included: “On the whole there is a good atmosphere here.” “It’s a funny old place here with different types of people. “

People and relatives told us they were involved in the reviews of care where changes and developments were discussed. One relative told us they had signed their relative’s care record to show they had agreed to the care planned. Care files seen contained information that relatives had provided on people’s life history. This information contained details such as people’s past hobbies and likes and dislikes to help staff deliver person centred care. Care files also contained signed consent forms such forms to consent to photographs of them being used on their file.

The service had maintained some community links such as those with the local churches. A catholic priest was visiting the home on a weekly basis to give people Holy Communion. There was also one person in the home visiting the church each week with their family.

During our visit one person within the dementia unit told us they liked dancing. We saw care staff encouraging this person to dance by playing music in the lounge. Staff told us people were encouraged to be involved in their care; to be independent and to choose their care options. We saw records showing staff had attended training in the Mental Capacity Act. This was so they had an awareness of how to support people who may not be able to make decisions for themselves.

We found that some people’s privacy and dignity was not always being maintained. We observed several incidents where this was demonstrated. Some examples are given below.

We observed one person with a catheter bag. They did not have the appropriate stand to hold the bag in place. This meant the catheter bag lay on the floor by their feet. We spoke with a relative of another person living at the home. They told us they had made a request for a stand as their relative had a catheter bag also left on the floor beside them.

We saw a person walking around the home holding the top of their trousers so they did not fall down. They appeared to be too big. The bottoms of their trousers were frayed and the hem was flapping on the floor presenting a trip hazard. When this was raised with staff they rolled the trouser bottoms up. Later in the day the hem dropped down again. This person was also seen with an incontinence pad falling out of the bottom of their trouser leg.

We observed one person with faeces under their nails. This could have presented a risk to the person’s health and also did not promote their dignity.