You are here

Georgina House Requires improvement

The provider of this service changed - see old profile

All reports

Inspection report

Date of Inspection: 4 April 2012
Date of Publication: 25 April 2012
Inspection Report published 25 April 2012 PDF | 49.95 KB

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 hold about this provider, carried out a visit on 04/04/2012, observed how people were being cared for, talked to staff and talked to people who use services.

Our judgement

The Provider was compliant in this regulation.

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

User experience

When we visited Georgina House on 04 April 2012, we used a number of different methods to help us understand the experiences of people using the service, because the people using the service had complex needs which meant they were not all able to tell us their experiences.

We observed that staff interacted with people in a caring and respectful way, and consistently used sign language and visual aids to offer them choices. We also observed two people responding very positively to a member of staff who spoke with them in their first language, which was more familiar to them than English.

During our visit we noted that people were actively involved in choosing and preparing their meals, and all three people who lived in the home made the decision to visit the local town centre.

People looked clean and well cared for, and where they needed support or assistance with personal care this was carried out in private to protect their dignity.

Other evidence

Our inspection of 05 October 2011 found that there was a lack of training for staff in communicating with people who had very limited verbal communication skills. This meant that people did not always receive information consistently in a way that they understood.

The provider wrote to us in October 2011 and told us that they would source training on Makaton sign language, and also introduce informal training sessions in the home by the manager.

We spoke with all three staff that were on duty when we visited on 04 April 2012. One had attended formal training in November 2011, and the other two were able to communicate using basic makaton, which they had learnt through sessions provided in the home.

We observed that staff used sign language to effectively communicate with people in this home. People understood this method of communication and responded positively.

The manager told us that regular meetings were held so that people could share their views about how the home was run and how it could be improved. This included identifying specific activities that people would like to be involved in, or different meals that people would like to have on the menus.

We noted that there was information relating to the home displayed on notice boards in the communal areas. This was produced in picture format so that people could understand it. This included information about people’s rights and how to make a complaint, how to access Advocacy Services and contact information for the local authority safeguarding team.