You are here

Crawshaw Hall Medical Centre and Nursing Home Good

All reports

Inspection report

Date of Inspection: 11 October 2013
Date of Publication: 13 November 2013
Inspection Report published 13 November 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 11 October 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 and talked with staff.

We used the Short Observational Framework for Inspection (SOFI). SOFI is a specific way of observing care to help us understand the experience of people who could not talk with us.

Our judgement

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

Reasons for our judgement

Eight people using the service told us they liked living at Crawshaw Hall. One person said, “Everybody’s very nice.” Another person said, “It’s really nice, they look after us.” We observed that members of staff were attentive to people’s needs and spoke to people in a courteous and friendly manner. All the people we asked told us that members of staff were polite and respectful.

We found that people were involved with decisions which affected them personally such as their daily routine. People could choose when to get up and go to bed and whether to spend time in their own room or in communal rooms. The manager of the medical centre told us that people were consulted individually when arrangements were being made for activities outside of the home. However, more formal meetings where people could express their views and make suggestions were not held. Regular meetings of the residents and relatives association were held in the nursing home. These meetings gave people the opportunity to express their opinions about the care provided and arrange suitable activities for people including those with a dementia.

Three people told us that staff asked them about the care and support they needed. One person told us they could look at their care plan if they wanted to do. Another person told us she had not read her care plan and said, “I trust the people that make it and they always ask if everything’s all right.” One visitor told us they had discussed their relative’s care plan with the manager. Involving people and their relatives in care planning helps to ensure people’s personal preferences are considered in the delivery of care.

We looked at the care plans of four people using the service. It was clear from the information about people’s individual likes and dislikes contained in these plans that they and their relatives had been involved in planning and reviewing their care. Where possible, we saw that care plans had been signed by the person using the service or their relatives to indicate their agreement with the care provided.