You are here

Archived: Olive Mount Hospital

All reports

Inspection report

Date of Inspection: 17 December 2013
Date of Publication: 17 January 2014

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 17 December 2013, checked how people were cared for at each stage of their treatment and care and talked with carers and / or family members. We talked with staff.

Our judgement

Care and treatment was planned and delivered in a way that was intended to ensure patient safety and welfare.

Reasons for our judgement

We included this outcome in the inspection to see if patients were experiencing safe and appropriate care and support.

In relation to this outcome, we spoke with two managers and three support staff. Patients were not available on the day of our inspection so we contacted six family members by telephone to seek their views of the service.

All the families we spoke with were very pleased with the care their relative received whilst having respite care at Wavertree Bungalow. They described how their relative had complex health needs and were confident that staff understood the needs and preferences of their relative.

A family member said to us, “The care is fantastic and the staff are wonderful. My [relative], who has a lot of health problems, has been coming here for 20 years. I can go on holidays for a week and don’t have to worry or ring up because I am that confident in the staff.” Another family member told us, “The staff are brilliant; every one of them. I call them my angels. My [relative] can’t talk but I can tell by her mood that she loves going there. The staff help and advise me with her health problems. Trust is a big thing for me and I trust the staff 100%.”

Wavertree Bungalow provided respite to five patients at any given time. If the assessment bed was not being used then staff told us it could be utilised if emergency respite was needed.There were approximately 33 patients on the respite list and each patient had a set number of respite days per year. Patients had a structure of established respite weekends or weeks throughout the year. We heard from families that this could be flexible if there was a need for emergency respite. For example, a family member said to us, “I needed to have an operation and they [staff] provided emergency respite at short notice. We heard from another person that the service had been flexible with the respite to accommodate a family event.

The manager informed us that the criteria for referral to the respite service included the following: the patient was over the age of 18 and had a learning disability; the patient had a GP located in Liverpool and the patient had significant health needs. The patient’s health needs were assessed to ensure they met the criteria.

We looked at the health care record files for four patients receiving respite at the time of our inspection. The records were person-centred which demonstrated that the patient and their families were involved in all aspects of planning care. The files contained general health assessments, risk assessments and detailed support plans. In addition, the risk of unsafe care was reduced by a number of processes in place. These included securing a GP update prior to a period of respite commencing, and gaining an update from families.

Care records included health action plans, which outlined detailed information about the patient’s physical health needs. Where a potential health need had been identified, this had been addressed in a timely way. In addition, we observed that specific health conditions were managed in accordance with recommended national guidelines.

Staff we spoke with had a thorough understanding of the 33 patients the service supported on a regular basis. Not only did this include an understanding of each patient’s needs, but also a detailed knowledge of their family circumstances and how this influenced the care they needed to provide.

Arrangements were in place for dealing with emergencies. Emergency equipment for basic life support was located at the service and this was checked daily to ensure it was still effective to be used. Staff were trained in life support and were able to describe what they would do in the event of a medical emergency. For example, we heard that staff had taken appropriate action by requesting an ambulance when they were concerned that a patient was not recovering effectively following a seizure.