You are here

All reports

Inspection report

Date of Inspection: 25 January 2013
Date of Publication: 22 February 2013
Inspection Report published 22 February 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 25 January 2013, observed how people were being cared for and talked with people who use the service. We talked with staff.

Our judgement

People's privacy, dignity and independence were respected.

Reasons for our judgement

During this inspection we spoke with two people and observed a third person who was receiving support from this service. We also met two other people who called into the office to tell staff they had arrived home. All five people clearly felt comfortable with the staff, who treated them in a friendly way and with professionalism and respect. We saw that everyone had good relationships with each other and there was a lot of good humoured banter between staff and people who received support.

We saw that staff knocked on people’s front doors and waited to be invited in, spoke respectfully with people and called people by their preferred name. Staff introduced us to each person and made sure the person was comfortable speaking with us. Staff told us they worked hard to ensure people’s dignity was maintained, even in the privacy of their own flat.

We looked at care records held for two people. These were personalised and there was evidence that, wherever possible, people had been involved in decisions about the care and support they received. Records of the service delivered to each person daily were very detailed and written in respectful language

Staff supported people to lead independent, full and interesting lives. Four people spent four days a week out and about at different day services, which they had chosen to attend. On one day each week people had a ‘home day’ when they were supported with household chores around their flat, or to go out for the day with staff. One person had learnt, with help from staff, to use public transport to and from their day service. Two people had been supported to find part-time, paid employment: one person worked in a care home and the other worked in a pub. Four people had gained enough confidence to go on holidays where they would be supported by staff from the organisation arranging the holidays. The fifth person needed one to one support from staff, but still led a very active life. At their weekly ‘lounge meeting’ each person was involved in deciding, for example, what activities they wanted to do, what they needed to shop for and how much money they would need to take out of the bank. These meetings were recorded in an easy-read format.