Archived: United Response - 1-3 Robin Close

Where people were unable to make their own decisions the provider included the appropriate people in the person’s needs assessment. This included being involved in the planning and setting care, treatment and support goals. We found that the care plans and risk assessments were in the process of being updated to reflect each individual’s specific needs.

We spoke with four representatives of people who used the service. They all told us that they were now involved in regular formal discussions regarding the person’s care. They felt listened to and their opinions were taken into consideration regarding the person’s care.

The provider had implemented systems to reduce the risk of poor nutrition and dehydration by supporting people to receive adequate nutrition and hydration.

We found that the provider had implemented an adequate support structure for staff supervisions. The majority of staff members we spoke with felt well supported by the management team.

We found that there were clear arrangements in place to ensure the safe administration of medicines.

Not all the people we met were able to verbally tell us about the care they received. Therefore we observed how staff interacted and supported people, to enable us to make a judgement on how their needs were being met.

We viewed four care plans. They were person centred and included personal preferences regarding daily routines. We found that the care plans were not always followed in accordance with the person’s preferences.

Four out of the five family members we spoke with told us that they were not involved in regular formal discussions regarding their relatives care. The majority of the relatives provided positive feedback regarding the level of support provided by the carers. Comments included “the care staff put in enormous amounts of effort” and “the staff are caring and very helpful”.

Staff we spoke with were not in all cases knowledgeable about the specific needs of the people they supported. We found that there was not an adequate support structure in place for staff supervisions .

We found that there were a lack of robust procedures in place to ensure the safe administration of medicines.

We found that the provider had systems in place to deal with complaints , including providing people who used the service and their relatives with information about that system.

We observed staff encouraging and enabling people who used the service to be involved in how their service is run. We were told by relatives that people are ‘encouraged to make decisions’ and the staff ‘all seem nice’.

We found that people’s needs were assessed and care and treatment were planned and delivered in line with their individual care plan. Care plans were person centred and included personal preferences and their life profile. People in the home, relatives and staff members had been involved in care planning and reviews.

People were supported to lead full and active lives including accessing the community. On the day we visited the home activities included going to college, a city farm visit, having a massage, going out for food and shopping. One relative advised that the home was a ‘happy place’ and had ‘exceeded expectations.’

We found that there were clear procedures in place regarding medicines handling. There were arrangements in place to ensure the safe administration and disposal of medicines.

Staff members demonstrated a good knowledge of the people they supported. The majority of the staff advised that they felt supported to undertake their role and staffing levels were adequate.

We found that the complaints procedure was not in an accessible format for people who lived at the home.