You are here

Archived: Olive Mount Hospital

All reports

Inspection report

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

Food and drink should meet people's individual dietary needs (outcome 5)

Meeting this standard

We checked that people who use this service

  • Are supported to have adequate nutrition and hydration.

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

Patients were protected from the risks of inadequate nutrition and dehydration.

Reasons for our judgement

We included this outcome in our inspection to see if patients were receiving adequate nutrition and hydration.

In relation to this outcome, we spoke with the manager of the service 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.

Each patient who received respite at Wavertree Bungalow had a detailed nutritional plan. We observed the plans took into account each patient’s food preferences. It outlined foods a patient could not have and why. It included any risks in relation to eating and drinking, equipment needed and staff support required. It was evident that other health care professionals were involved, such as the speech and language therapist. Staff told us that the speech and language therapist had provided advice, such as how to position a person to minimise any risks associated with swallowing.

The family members we spoke with all confirmed they had been involved in developing and reviewing the nutritional plan for their relative. They were satisfied that their relative received adequate nutrition and hydration whilst receiving respite. One family member said to us, “My [relative] has a mashed diet and staff make sure she has her meals like that. I was involved in the diet plan.” Another relative said, “I can trust that staff follow my [relative’s] eating plan.”

Meals were prepared at the service by support staff. The kitchen was adequately equipped for the storage and preparation of meals. Support staff informed us they had received training in food hygiene, including refresher training. They told us the service was subject to regular infection control audits and such an audit had taken place the day before our inspection. We observed that the last food hygiene inspection by Liverpool City Council took place in January 2013 with an outcome of ‘5’ (excellent).

Staff informed us they purchased food based on the food plan and preferences of patients who were due to come in for respite. We observed that a menu was displayed but staff told us they could make alternative meals if patients did not like the choices available.