INSPECTORS
CONCLUSIONS
THE HOME HAS PRODUCED A STATEMENT OF PURPOSE AND SERVICE USERS GUIDE, BOTH
DOCUMENTS NEED AMENDING TO MEET REQUIREMENTS, THE INSPECTOR NOTED THAT THOSE
INDIVIDUALS SPOKEN TO WERE UNAWARE OF THE STATEMENT OF PURPOSE. THE HOME PROVIDES
A CONTRACT, PRODUCED BY BUPA TO ALL PRIVATE SERVICE USERS, THE HOME DOES NOT
PROVIDE SERVICE USERS PLACED BY THE LOCAL AUTHORITY WITH A CONTRACT, THESE
RESIDENTS ARE GIVEN THE LOCAL AUTHORITY PLACEMENT AGREEMENT WHICH DOES NOT
PROVIDE FOR THE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE RESIDENT AND THE HOME AND THE RIGHTS
AND OBLIGATIONS OF BOTH PARTIES, OF THE TWO RESIDENT FILES CHECKED ONLY ONE
CONTAINED THE LOCAL AUTHORITY AGREEMENT.
MY
CONCLUSIONS
MOST RESIDENTS ARE PLACED BY THE LOCAL AUTHORITY SO THEREFORE MOST RESIDENTS
HAD NO CONTRACT, WHICH IS THEIR ONLY REDRESS LEGALLY SHOULD THINGS GO WRONG,
TWO FILES CHECKED AND ONE HAD NO KIND OF CONTRACT AT ALL. RESIDENTS AND RELATIVES
SPOKEN TO DID NOT KNOW WHAT CARE THE HOME WAS AIMING TO PROVIDE AS THEY WERE
UNAWARE OF THE STATEMENT OF PURPOSE.
I WOULD GRADE THIS AS STANDARD NOT MET, 1 MAJOR SHORTFALLS. STANDARD AWARDED 2. MINOR SHORTFALLS.
STANDARD TO BE MET
NO SERVICE USER MOVES INTO A HOME WITHOUT HAVING HAD THEIR NEEDS ASSESSED
AND BEEN ASSURED THESE WILL BE MET.
INSPECTORS
CONCLUSIONS
THE LOCAL AUTHORITY IS RESPONSIBLE FOR PLACEMENTS TO THE HOME, THE PROCEDURE
REQUIRES THE HOME TO REQUEST A COPY OF THE CARE MANAGER ASSESSMENT, THIS IS
THEN FOLLOWED BY THE HOMES ASSESSMENT FORM, IN THE TWO FILES CHECKED THE INSPECTOR
FOUND THAT ONE ONLY CONTAINED THE CARE MANAGERS ASSESSMENT AND NO HOME ASSESSMENT,
THE OTHER CONTAINED NO ASSESSMENT AT ALL, NEITHER FILE CONTAINED WRITTEN CONFIRMATION
THAT THE HOME IS ABLE TO MEET THEIR NEEDS.
MY CONCLUSIONS
GIVEN THAT RESIDENTS WHO HAVE SPECIALIST NEEDS SUCH AS DEMENTIA OR NURSING
CARE COULD NOT POSSIBLY HAVE THOSE NEEDS MET IF A HOME PLACES THEM IN THE
FIRST EMPTY BED THAT COMES UP, GIVEN THAT IT IS RECOGNISED THAT RESIDENTS
WHO ARE IN THE WRONG CARE SETTING ARE MORE LIKELY TO BE ABUSED, I THEREFORE
FULLY AGREE WITH BUPAS OWN EVIDENCE GIVEN TO THE HEALTH SELECT COMMITTEE THAT
THEY RECOGNISE SUCH A SITUATION PUTS A RESIDENT AT RISK, I QUOTE FROM THIS
EVIDENCE. " CAUSES OF ABUSE, A MARKET ECONOMY
THAT MAY RESULT IN SOME CARE HOMES ACCEPTING RESIDENTS WHEN THE HOMES ARE
ILL EQUIPPED TO PROVIDE APPROPRIATE CARE FOR THOSE RESIDENTS, BUPA BELIEVES
THIS HAPPENS WHEN CARE HOMES ARE ON THE BRINK OF BANKRUPTCY".
I WOULD HAVE GRADED THIS AS 1, MAJOR SHORTFALLS, STANDARD AWARDED 2, MINOR SHORTFALLS.
STANDARD TO BE MET
SERVICE USERS/RELATIVES CAN VISIT THE HOME PRIOR TO MOVING IN. SERVICE USERS
ASSESSED FOR SHORT TERM CARE ARE HELPED TO BECOME INDEPENDENT AND RETURN HOME.
INSPECTORS CONCLUSIONS
THE INSPECTOR NOTED SOME DISCREPANCY WITH THE NUMBERS AND CATEGORIES FOR EACH
CLIENT GROUP REGISTERED THIS IS BEING DEALT WITH AS A SEPARATE ISSUE TO THIS
INSPECTION BUT MAY ON LATER INSPECTIONS AFFECT THIS STANDARD, THERE WAS EVIDENCE
FROM SERVICE USERS THEY COULD VISIT THE HOME, THE HOME IS COMMENDED FOR PAINTING
THE TOILET DOORS RED.
MY CONCLUSIONS
ONLY TWO FILES WERE CHECKED ON THIS AND I WOULD HAVE SAID THAT THIS WARRANTED
AN IMMEDIATE INSPECTION OF ALL FILES AS THERE IS AN IMMEDIATE RISK TO RESIDENTS,
IT IS NOT SOMETHING THAT COULD THEREFORE BE LEFT UNTIL THE NEXT INSPECTION
IS DUE IN SIX MONTHS TIME, IF RESIDENTS ARE NOT BEING ASSESSED THEN THERE
NEEDS CAN NOT BE IDENTIFIED AT ALL, SHORT TERM CARE AND RETURNING HOME IS
IMPOSSIBLE, THE REQUIREMENT THAT PEOPLE CAN VISIT THE HOME PRIOR TO ADMISSION
SHOULD NOT BE CONSIDERED WHEN SUCH MAJOR SHORTFALLS HAVE BEEN IDENTIFIED IN
THE OTHER REQUIREMENTS FOR THIS SECTION.
I WOULD GRADE THIS AS 1, A MAJOR SHORTFALL IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES. STANDARD AWARDED 2 MINOR SHORTFALL.
STANDARD TO BE MET
THE HOME ENSURES THAT PROSPECTIVE SERVICE USERS ARE INVITED TO VISIT THE HOME
AND MOVE IN ON A TRAIL BASIS BEFORE THEY MAKE A DECISION TO STAY, UNPLANNED
ADMISSIONS ARE AVOIDED WHERE POSSIBLE.
INSPECTORS CONCLUSIONS
WHENEVER POSSIBLE PERSPECTIVE SERVICE USERS ARE INVITED TO VISIT THE HOME
PRIOR TO ADMISSION, MEMBERS OF STAFF CARRYING OUT THE HOMES ASSESSMENT ALSO
MEET WITH THE SERVICE USER IN THEIR CURRENT RESIDENCE, ONE SERVICE USER SAID
HIS RELATIVE WAS ABLE TO VISIT PRIOR TO ADMITTANCE, THE HOME DOCUMENTS IN
ITS STATEMENT OF PURPOSE THAT EMERGENCY ADMISSIONS ARE ACCEPTED, THE STATEMENT
OF PURPOSE MUST BE AMENDED TO INCLUDE THE PROCEDURES FOR SUCH ADMISSIONS.
MY CONCLUSIONS
THE HOME MUST AMEND THE STATEMENT OF PURPOSE THAT THE RESIDENTS AND RELATIVES
WERE UNAWARE OF IN THE FIRST PLACE, STAFF VISIT PROSPECTIVE SERVICE USERS
TO CARRY OUT ASSESSMENTS FOR THE HOME, HALF THE FILES CHECKED SHOWED NO ASSESSMENT
WHAT SO EVER.
IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES THIS COULD ONLY BE GRADED AS 1, A MAJOR SHORTFALL, STANDARD AWARDED 3 STANDARD MET, NO SHORTFALLS AT ALL.
SECTION 1. OF THE 5 STANDARDS INSPECTED, 1
WAS NOT APPLICABLE, 1 WAS FULLY MET AND 3 WERE PARTIALLY MET.