24 May 2012
During a routine inspection
There were 39 people living at St Peter's when we visited. The unregistered manager told us everyone at the home at that time had nursing needs and most had a diagnosis of dementia. We spoke with two to get their views of the service and with the visiting relatives of two other people. We met others who lived at the home who were unable to tell us about their life at the home because of their physical or mental frailty. We observed some of the support people received from staff to get a better understanding of their experiences especially where they were unable to speak with us. This included using a tool, called a short observational framework for inspection (SOFI), which helped us make judgements about the care people experienced at the home. We spoke with five care and ancillary staff, the unregistered manager, a new activity co-ordinator, and the administrator.
One person told us they felt they were involved in the day-to-day running of the home. Two people commented that staff enabled people to do what they wanted as much as possible. One of these told us, as an example, they could have a shower when they wanted. There was evidence that some people had discussed their care plan with staff, with other opportunities provided by the home for people to become better informed so they could influence the service they received.
People were enabled to be part of a wider community. A sports day was being arranged by the home which would involve people's younger relatives. A visitor told us that the home provided a staff escort so they could take their relative on outings. Someone's care plan included how staff were to support them to keep in touch with their elderly relatives.
One person told us they had 'good and bad days' with regard to their mental and physical health and that staff were sympathetic when they were not so well. A visitor thought the keyworkers were very good at fulfilling their role in providing particular support to individuals. People had access to community professionals such as GPs, opticians and a dentist. We saw other improvements since our last inspection that reduced risks from falls, such as people having call bells near them, and handrails fitted in corridors. People were given alternative foods to meet their particular dietary needs.
People's preferences were respected and they were enabled to enjoy these. Someone whose 'lifestyle' information included that they liked music was assisted to attend a musical entertainment during our visit. The activities programme included activities related to people's interests, such as walks in places that individuals were fond of. Someone told us they liked using the garden and were given support to do so. A visitor told us about the home's new greenhouse which those with an interest in gardening were supported to use. We also saw that people were able to spend time alone if they wished.
When we asked one person if they felt safe at the home they replied 'I have no doubts at all.' Two people confirmed that staff were readily available if they wanted them. A visitor told us that staff took the time to sit with their relative in the evenings, which they appreciated. However, we identified concerns about the adequacy of staffing in one part of the home in relation to the safety needs of people. The environment people lived in looked clean and homely although we found some aspects of hygiene that needed improvement.