You are here

Scarsdale Grange Nursing Home Good

All reports

Inspection report

Date of Inspection: 31 July and 1 August 2013
Date of Publication: 2 October 2013
Inspection Report published 02 October 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 31 July 2013 and 1 August 2013, talked with people who use the service and talked with carers and / or family members. We talked with staff and talked with other authorities.

Our judgement

People’s privacy, dignity and independence were respected. 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 using the service and their relatives that we spoke with were positive about the home. Some comments included “I am as happy as I could be here” and “The staff are very very good. They do little things for me. They take me out. We have a laugh. I don’t miss out on anything.”

We observed positive interactions between staff, people using the service and their relatives throughout the visit. We observed that people’s rooms were personalised and decorated to their own taste. We observed that the dementia unit on the second floor was not decorated to suit the needs of those with dementia, such as with clear signage for different rooms and use of different colours on floors and walls. The staff were however enthusiastic about putting this in place.

People using the service told us that their opinions were sought so that they were involved in decisions and that they had a choice. The examples they gave included choosing what to eat, what to wear and whether to join in activities. Their comments included: “The food is good here. We get a choice of what we want. I get a cooked breakfast every day.”

We spoke with members of staff about choice and they were able to tell us about people’s preferences in terms of food, what time they liked to get up and go to bed and how they preferred to have their personal care undertaken. One staff member told us “People can get up when they want. It’s entirely up to them”. People using the service confirmed that they can get up and go to bed when they liked.

There was information on display around the home about activities and events, pictures of staff and information about how to make a complaint if needed. We asked people how they are given a choice and we were given examples of how staff asked them verbally what they wanted to eat each mealtime. There were no other picture boards or menus on display to show what was on offer. We discussed this with manager who acknowledged a need for this to be put in place.

During the inspection we spoke with two relatives who told us that they had been involved in their family member’s care plan and received good communication from the staff. One relative told us that they regularly attended relative’s meetings at the home. We were shown a timetable of meetings that had occurred and ones that were due to take place with relatives. We saw minutes of these meetings.

There were’ privacy and dignity ’ and ‘autonomy and choice’ policies in place which we were told that all staff had read and signed to confirm this. All of the people using the service and their relatives told us that they were treated with respect and their dignity was maintained. We spoke with three members of staff who were able to describe how they maintained people's privacy and dignity. We observed that the staff team were respectful. Staff told us that they knew the people very well as they spent so much time with them.

The provider may find it useful to note that we observed some instances where dignity had not been respected, for example we observed two people with stains on their clothes and long finger nails with visible dirt underneath. We looked at the daily record of four people and found that none of them had received nail care within the last month. We discussed this with the manager who told us that previously nail care was not undertaken by care staff and there had been some confusion around whether care staff should undertake this. The manager assured us that nail care would now be undertaken by care staff.

During two mealtimes we observed people were not asked if they would like to wear a food protector, which staff referred to as a ‘bib’. Staff also referred on multiple instances to ‘feeders’ when referring to staff members who provided assistance to those who required it during mealtimes. There was also one person using the service who was a smoker. There was no sheltered outdoor area for smokers at the home. We discussed this with the manager who had plans