You are here

This service was previously managed by a different provider - see old profile

All reports

Inspection report

Date of Inspection: 4 February 2013
Date of Publication: 19 April 2013
Inspection Report published 19 April 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 4 February 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 and reviewed information sent to us by other authorities.

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

Improvements had been made to ensure that patients’ privacy, dignity and independence were respected.

Reasons for our judgement

Patients understood the care and treatment choices available to them. Patients were given appropriate information and support regarding their care or treatment and their values and human rights were respected.

During our last inspection visit to the ward, on 14 August 2012, we found that patients’ privacy and dignity were not fully respected. The provider wrote and told us what remedial action would be taken and when they would be compliant with the regulation associated with this outcome, outcome 1. We carried out a follow-up visit on 04 February 2013 and found evidence to support this.

Patients who we spoke with told us that they knew the reason for their admission to the ward; this, they said, was to rehabilitate and recover following their treatment of a medical condition.

Patients also told us that they were actively involved in the planning, monitoring and reviewing of their agreed rehabilitation treatment programme. Our examination of three out of 12 sets of patients’ care records confirmed that this was the case. This included a weekly review by a team of medical, nursing and therapy staff who would collectively discuss patients’ progress and response to their rehabilitation programmes. These weekly reviews and discussions were carried out in conjunction with the relevant patient. One patient told us that, “I am kept informed in a very nice way.”

We found from all of the patients who we spoke with and observing patients talking to members of staff, that patients were kept informed about their discharge arrangements. These arrangements included the provision of any additional equipment and support with their personal care to ensure that the patient would be safe following their hospital discharge.

In each of the patients’ rooms that we visited we noted that patients had access to written information about the ward. This included information to help patients identify the range of roles of staff by the colour of their uniforms. Other information included, but was not limited to, the times when patients’ meals were served and times when patients could receive their visitors.

Patients also had individual leaflets that held summary information about the ward. One patient said, “I found it very, very, useful.”

Although all of the patients who we spoke with said that they did not know how to make a formal complaint, they said that they would have no reservation in speaking to a member of ward staff. However, they said that they had no cause to make a complaint because they were satisfied with the standard and quality of their care and treatment. The provider may wish to note that there was no information held in the patients’ information leaflet about how to make a formal complaint should they, or their representative, have the need to do so.

In preparation for their discharge from the hospital, patients, where possible, were supported to be independent to self-administer their own prescribed medication. We noted that patients were provided with written information to guide them to safely manage their own medication. Patients told us that they had understood this written information. We saw a patient’s understanding of this written information regarding their medication was facilitated and supported by a member of staff and this was carried out on a one-to-one basis. We also noted that a patient was given information in a way so that they could understand about the change made regarding their prescribed medication, and the expected health benefits.

All of the patients who we spoke with said that staff always knocked on their room doors before entering and we observed that this was the case. We also noted that when patients were supported with their personal care, this was carried out in private and behind closed doors.

From our observations of staff working, we noted that patients were offered choices about their support and treatment. These included choice of what they would like to eat and choosing where they wou