You are here

All reports

Inspection report

Date of Inspection: 29, 31 May 2013
Date of Publication: 29 June 2013
Inspection Report published 29 June 2013 PDF

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 looked at the personal care or treatment records of people who use the service, carried out a visit on 29 May 2013 and 31 May 2013, observed how people were being cared for and checked how people were cared for at each stage of their treatment and care. We talked with people who use the service, talked with staff, were accompanied by a pharmacist and reviewed information sent to us by other authorities. We talked with other authorities.

Our judgement

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

Reasons for our judgement

When we visited Roden Court we spoke with eleven people who were using the service. We also looked at the personal files for seven people who live there. When we spoke with people who were using the service they were mostly positive about the care they were receiving. The following are examples of some of the comments we received:

“It is all right. I like to be able to choose what I do.”

“They [the staff] don’t swear at me, so I don’t swear at them.”

“The care is good. They always meet my needs.”

“I don’t really decide. They just fit me in.”

People experienced care, treatment and support that met their needs and protected their rights. When we observed staff talking to people using the service we saw they did so in a respectful manner. When people rang their call bell this was answered promptly.

Roden Court is registered with the Care Quality Commission to provide personal care to people. When we spoke with the manager they explained that all people living at the service had access to a ‘core menu’ of care. This gave people access to a weekly interactive session with a keyworker, escort for external appointments, care co-ordination and liaison, and emergency care services. In addition to this, and depending upon their individual needs, people had individual care packages recording the support they required and the number of hours this was funded for.

People’s needs were assessed and care and treatment was planned and delivered in line with their individual care plan. We looked at the care plans for seven people living at Roden Court. These showed evidence that their individual needs had been recorded and individual plans had been put in place to ensure people had their needs met. The individual preferences and choices of people were also recorded. Individual risk assessments had been undertaken.

When concerns were identified about the suitability of the service to meet the needs of people, there was evidence that the provider had contacted the funding authority appropriately.

There was evidence care plans had been reviewed and updated. Some files showed evidence that people had received regular keyworker sessions. However, the provider may find it useful to note that in two of the files we looked at there were no keyworker sessions recorded.