You are here

Archived: Cartmel Old Grammar

The provider of this service changed - see old profile

All reports

Inspection report

Date of Inspection: 28 June 2013
Date of Publication: 18 July 2013
Inspection Report published 18 July 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 28 June 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 carers and / or family members, talked with staff and talked with commissioners of services.

Our judgement

People’s privacy, dignity and independence were respected.

Reasons for our judgement

People we spoke with told us they were happy living at Cartmel Old Grammar. They told us the staff in the home treated them with respect and supported them to maintain their independence. One person told us, “The staff know what I do myself and what I need help with, they let you get on and do things for yourself”.

We saw that people who wished to, carried out tasks in the home such as helping to prepare the dining room before the midday meal was served. People who had chosen to carry out these tasks told us this was their choice and said they enjoyed this. One person said, “I like to help out with little jobs when I can, it’s good to feel useful”.

We observed the meal being served. We saw that people were given a choice of main course and served their own vegetables from dishes placed on each dining table. This gave people choice and control over their meals. Where people needed assistance with serving or eating their meals this was discreetly provided by the care staff.

People confirmed that they made choices about their lives in the home including where they spent their time, where to meet their visitors and whether to take part in the activities provided.

During our inspection we saw that some people had chosen to take part in the afternoon’s planned activities, other people had preferred to follow activities of their choosing in their own rooms and others met with friends in one of the communal areas in the home.

We observed that the staff in the home took appropriate actions to protect people’s privacy, including by knocking on doors to private areas before entering and ensuring doors to toilets and bathrooms were closed when people were using them.

We saw the staff were knowledgeable about the needs and likes of the people who lived in the home and provided individualised support which centred on the person and respected the choices they had made about their care.

The service had formal systems to obtain the views of people who lived there and to share with them information about upcoming events. Meetings were held with people to give them opportunities to express any concerns and a newsletter was produced detailing important information about the service and planned activities and events.

We looked at some of the records the home held about people. We saw people had been asked about their preferences regarding how they were supported and about the things which were important to them in their lives. People had been asked how they wished the staff to address them and throughout our inspection we saw that the staff called people by their preferred name.