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 get safe and appropriate care that meets their needs and supports their rights (outcome 4)

Meeting this standard

We checked that people who use this service

  • Experience effective, safe and appropriate care, treatment and support that meets their needs and protects their rights.

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 experienced care, treatment and support that met their needs and protected their rights.

User experience

When we visited Georgina House on 04 April 2012 we found that people’s needs were assessed, and care and treatment was planned and delivered in line with their individual care plan. Due to the varying levels of communication that people in Georgina House had, it was difficult to discuss their care with them in any depth. Therefore we used a number of different methods, including observations, to help us understand the experiences of people using the service.

One person that we spoke with demonstrated an awareness of the care and support they needed, and told us they were happy with the staff and the way that they helped them.

We observed that where people were able, they had signed their care plans to indicate that they agreed with them.

People had Health Action Plans in place which showed that appointments with other health professionals such as opticians, dentists and chiropodists were made for them at regular intervals or more frequently if required.

Other evidence

Our inspection of 05 October 2011 found that the care plans were not all up to date and the staff on duty were not all familiar with their content. This meant that people had been put at unnecessary risk due to inappropriate care delivery. The provider wrote to us in October 2011 and told us that the importance of accurate care plans would be discussed with all staff, through meetings and supervision. They told us that they would be compliant with this outcome by the end of November 2011.

When we visited the home on 04 April 2012, we looked at the care plans for all three people who lived there. We found that they had all been reviewed monthly and amended to reflect people’s needs as they changed. Each person had care and support plans and linked risk assessments in place. These had been clearly written in a personalised way and referred to the individual’s personal choices and preferences, and their personal goals. They provided staff with guidance to promote continuity of care, and demonstrated that there were arrangements in place to deal with foreseeable emergencies.