Archived: Peter Shore Court

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. We found from this observation that staff were engaging with people at regular intervals and communicating in a respectful and dignified way.

We looked at the care plans of four people who were using the service. Each care plan showed how the person and their relatives, where applicable, were consulted. The care plans described people's needs and wishes and described how the person preferred to be cared for. We found that care plans were reviewed at regular intervals.

The provider ensured that there was protected time for meals. We saw that enough staff were available to prompt and assist people to eat their meal when necessary.

The service had a checklist for identifying if consideration needed to be given to each person under Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DOLS).

All staff responsible for administering medicines were trained and we saw records confirming this.

We spoke with four people on the first floor and two on the ground floor. One person said 'it's alright here really'. We asked another person if there was enough to do and they said 'it's alright, I can't complain.' Two other people told us that they had enjoyed their lunch and felt they were not being rushed.

We found that the way in which risk assessments were carried out had improved and that the home had informed the Commission of all notifiable incidents as required.

There were two dining rooms on the first floor. Staff interacted with people as they served lunch and this helped to make lunch a positive, social occasion for people. However, the provider may find it helpful to note that in the larger ground floor dining room we noted less social interaction.

Body maps had been introduced as a normal part of the care plan recording routine to encourage staff to actively look for, and report, any signs of bruising. We saw evidence of this on all of the care plans we looked at. However, we found an instance where someone was putting themselves at risk of injury. The risk to this person was increasing, although the risk assessment had not addressed what should be done or how to minimise the risk.

Apart from the problem with odour in one part of the building, the home appeared to be clean and hygienic. The home employed domestic staff.

During our visit we found that the staffing rota matched the staff who were on duty at the time. Two staff who we spoke with told us that at times they were very busy but they did not think there was insufficient staffing of the home.

One person told us that the food was 'very good.'

We spoke with two relatives of people using the service about raising concerns and they said they would feel happy raising any concerns about care or safety with staff. One person, who previously had concerns and criticisms of the home, said they felt their relative was kept safe in the home. The other relative said, 'the staff are nice. I could easily talk to staff'.