You are here

Archived: Elysian House Good

All reports

Inspection report

Date of Inspection: 19 October 2012
Date of Publication: 13 November 2012
Inspection Report published 13 November 2012 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 reviewed all the information we have gathered about Elysian House, looked at the personal care or treatment records of people who use the service, carried out a visit on 19 October 2012 and observed how people were being cared for. We talked with people who use the service, talked with staff and received feedback from people using comment cards.

Our judgement

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

People expressed their views and were involved in making decisions about their care and treatment. A meeting of staff and people using the service was held once a week. We saw from the minutes of the meeting that people gave feedback on the service and chose activities for the week.

People who used the service were given appropriate information and support regarding their care and treatment. This included an information pack given to people on admission. We also observed a range of leaflets in the reception area on topics related to mental health and services in the local area. The results of a recent analysis of satisfaction questionnaires showed that 95% of people considered they were given sufficient information about the service.

People’s privacy, dignity and independence were respected. We observed staff interacting with people who used the service and treating them with respect and consideration. People were able to come and go from the service as they wished and were encouraged to make and maintain links with the community. We saw positive comments on the service recorded on satisfaction questionnaires. One person had written, “staff have shown incredible respect, dignity and discretion.” This was typical of the comments we saw.

People’s diversity, values and human rights were respected. For example, the service was celebrating black history month and related activities had been organised.