Archived: OSJCT Southfield

The four staff we spoke with, explained how there was enough time to meet people's care needs, however, they would have liked more time to spend with each person individually.

We observed the staff speak to people politely and asked if they needed their assistance. During the inspection we observed one person having a consultation with the GP in the staff office. We saw other staff present in the office during the consultation, for example administrative staff and an area manager. Although the door was shut there was a glass panel and the person could be seen from the corridor. This meant one person was not given the opportunity to have a confidential consultation with their GP.

Care plans we saw generally gave details of people's health and personal care needs and the support they required.

We spoke with a speech and language therapist (SaLT) visiting one person. The SaLT described the reason for their visit and explained the importance of staff consistently using nutritional supplements for one person at risk of choking. The SaLT told us training was to be delivered to the staff on the importance of adding 'thickeners' to food and fluid for people at risk of choking.

People were not fully protected against the risk of unsafe use and management of medicines. Staff were not consistently signing records following the administration of medicines. Staff were not given information on the medicines they administered and about 'when required' medicines also known as PRN medicines. Medicines systems were not audited.

Everyone we spoke with was confident any concerns would be dealt with effectively.

The provider sent us an action plan which confirmed they had taken action in relation to the areas we identified.

During this inspection, we found the standard of people's care plans had significantly improved.

Documentation was clear, informative, up to date and easy to follow.

The majority of information was specific and accurately reflected people's needs.

All care staff had received training in developing effective care planning documentation. Discussions about good record keeping had taken place in staff meetings and formal staff supervision sessions.

Systems to monitor and maintain a good standard of record keeping were in place.

People were supported appropriately. One person described how they liked to spend their day. They told us care workers followed what they wanted. A person became unwell during the inspection. The emergency services were promptly called to support the person. Care workers we spoke with had a detailed knowledge of the needs of the people living in the home. The provider had systems for assessing the quality of the service. Where issues were identified, appropriate action was taken.

The home did not always ensure people were assessed in accordance with the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and referrals made, where indicated, under the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards.

While some records were clear, there was a lack of consistency in record keeping. This included some records which were not signed or dated. Others used general wording and did not clearly describe actions staff were to take. Some records did not include certain specific information we were told by people and care workers.