Archived: Pexton Grange

During our time on the unit we saw staff members treated people with respect and courtesy and being kind and supportive to people when engaging with them. Staff spent time talking with people and were seen offering choices where the person's capacity meant they were able to make choices. For example, whether to get up or not, stay in their room or go to the lounge, which chair to sit in, in the lounge and whether they wanted to go outside or not.

Where needed, staff were seen giving people time to respond where they may have had difficulty understanding what the member of staff was saying to them.

We saw people reacting positively to staff interactions, including smiles and laughter. We saw that staff utilised eye contact and touch to support and engage with people.

We found people were clean and tidy and they appeared to have received a good level of personal care.

We saw that staff demonstrated genuine affection, care and concern for people using the service. Staff members were attentive and provided support when needed, for example, assisting people with drinks and responding when people needed the toilet.

We saw staff offered people moisture wipes to clean their hands and face after they had eaten. Staff were seen to provide this support for those people who were not able to do this themselves.

We saw staff met people's needs in a safe way, by using appropriate equipment and moving and handling techniques to move them.

We saw people sitting in their rooms and others in the lounge. We spoke with two people in their rooms, but were not able to fully communicate with them. However, both appeared content. One was reading a newspaper and another watching the TV. The programme on the TV did not appear age appropriate, but discussions with staff identified that is what the person liked to watch.

During our SOFI observation soft and calm music was playing. This provided a therapeutic environment for people living at the service. For 15 minutes of the observation one person was very engaged with the music singing and tapping their hands. If a staff member had engaged with them, during the rest of the observation as they did in the afternoon, the person may have been in a more positive mood for a longer period of time.

However, the music was spoiled by the TV also being on with subtitles, which was very distracting. We didn't see anyone watching the TV. If someone had been watching the TV, it may have been confusing for people with dementia as the sound in the room did not correspond with the programme.

There was one person who was engaged the majority of the time in completing a crossword in the newspaper. A staff member supported the person at one point acknowledging their skills and achievements.

Two people spent the majority of the time during the observation watching what was happening around them, in the main for one person a staff member knitting with another person. They had no interaction from staff during the observation period. One of those people fell asleep. The provider may find this useful to note, because if staff had interacted with them their mood may have been more positive and the person falling asleep may not have done so.

Where possible we did have general discussions with people. One person told us, 'It's alright. It gets a bit boring because they don't do enough.' They told us they went in the garden sometimes. We saw this person sleep through all but five minutes of our SOFI observation. The provider may find it useful to note their comments, as if staff participated in activities that people had interests in, then they may engage more with their surroundings.

In our general discussions with people, no-one made any comments that would alert us to any concerns about their care, welfare or safety. Neither did we observe any concerns during our SOFI observations.

During our observations as part of the SOFI we were of the opinion there were sufficient staff to meet people's needs in a timely way.