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 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 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 experienced care, treatment and support that met their needs and protected their rights.

Reasons for our judgement

Patients' needs were assessed and care and treatment was planned and delivered in line with their individual care plan.

During our last inspection visit to the ward, on 14 August 2012, we found that patients were not always in receipt of safe and quality care and treatment. 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 4. We carried out a follow-up visit on 04 February 2013 and found evidence to support this.

All of the patients that were spoken with had positive comments about their support, care and treatment. One patient told us, “I’ve been looked after well here.” Another patient said, “I can do things now for myself, which I couldn’t do (when they were first admitted to the Lord Byron ward).”

From speaking with patients and examination of their treatment records we found that systems were in place to monitor, review and treat people’s skin conditions, including the redressing of these. One patient told us, “My leg always feels much better when it’s been done (re-dressed).”

From speaking with patients, our examination of the sample of three out of 12 patients’ records and speaking with members of staff, we found that patients had undergone assessments by therapists. These assessments included the ability for a patient to provide their own personal care and their ability to safely stand and transfer from their bed to chair and vice versa. Other assessments included patients’ abilities to be independent with drink and food preparation.

The patients’ records we reviewed indicated that goals for rehabilitation were set in agreement with the patient. We found patients, where possible, had signed and dated their confirmation and agreement to their treatment programme. One patient who we spoke with said, “I agreed (with the physiotherapist) to try and stand for seven seconds. Then, after that, I managed to stand for nine seconds. I am going for 11 seconds the next time. I feel really good with the progress.”

Although there was no formal system in place to provide patients with social activities to alleviate any feelings of boredom, none of the patients who we spoke with said they had felt bored. This was because they had newspapers, books and personal CD players to entertain them. One patient who we spoke with said they enjoyed watching the birds from their own room window.

Most of the patients who we spoke with said that they had enjoyed watching a DVD film of ‘The King and I’ which was organised by members of staff for patients to watch if they chose to do so. One patient said, “It was a good presentation. Most of us enjoyed watching it.”

From our review of the sample of patients’ records we noted that there was an hourly checking system in place. This was to ensure patients’ comfort and safety were checked at least once per hour.

The sample of patients’ records indicated that patients were monitored for signs of ill-health. This included monitoring of their blood pressure, pulse and temperature and records were maintained for these clinical observations. From speaking with a patient and the ward manager, we noted that a patient was receiving treatment for an infection. However, the provider may wish to note that their observations had not been recorded with the expected frequency of four times per day for 27, 30 and 31 January 2013. Furthermore, there were no records to confirm that the patient was also monitored during 01 February 2013. We also found this to be the case for another patient. Their observation records noted that there may have been an omission of monitoring or an omission of recording during 01 February 2013. Fortunately, both patients had observation records that indicated the result of their blood pressure, pulse and temperature monitoring were clinically normal, prior to and following 01 February 2013.

Patients’ risk assessments were carried out and measures were in place to manage a