You are here

Archived: Pulse - Plymouth

All reports

Inspection report

Date of Inspection: 10, 11, 16 October 2013
Date of Publication: 14 November 2013
Inspection Report published 14 November 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)

Meeting 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 October 2013, 11 October 2013 and 16 October 2013, observed how people were being cared for and talked with people who use the service. We talked with carers and / or family members, talked with staff, reviewed information given to us by the provider and talked with other authorities.

Our judgement

People’s privacy, dignity and independence were respected and people’s views and experiences were taken into account in the way the service was provided and delivered in relation to their care.

Reasons for our judgement

The people receiving a service and their relatives told us that care staff were "friendly", and "always polite", and they felt their dignity and privacy was respected. One person told us they were always respected and the care workers were also respectful about how they treated the person's home and any equipment they needed to use.

People told us they felt they were involved in their care. They said the care workers consulted the care plans and spoke with them about their care. People confirmed a log of each visit was maintained by the care workers.

People said that generally the same care workers visited them. The management team told us they tried to ensure that each person received visits from a regular team of care workers so the care was provided in a consistent way. One person told us they found the management team considered which care workers were suitable and able to meet their care needs. They also said they were able to tell the management team if, for any reason, there were any care workers they preferred did not visit them. People said they felt they were listened to when they approached the management team about anything. One person said "If I'm not happy and I tell them, it's sorted". Another person told us [they are] "a very good team in the office. They usually know about issues before we do". This person also said that the office team contacted them if there were any issues about providing care workers for a shift (they usually had the same team). This person told us "occasionally no-one is able to get here but the office let me know and they do their best to cover". We found people had contingency plans as part of their care plan in the event no care worker was available, for example, a family member or a suitably trained care worker from another agency.

We saw that people were provided with information about the service, including how to make a complaint. People told us they felt confident about contacting the registered manager or any of the management team if they had any queries or complaints. We also saw a handbook for staff which included the company's confidentiality policy. This ensured that people's privacy and confidentiality was maintained and people were kept safe.