#sue ryder hospice
Our inspector’s description of this service
Last updated 2 January 2015
We visited the home on 5 August 2014. We spoke with four of the 10 people who were staying at Sue Ryder – Nettlebed. We also spoke with four people’s relatives and friends. We spoke with staff from the hospice which included two doctors, two nurses, three of health care assistants, four domestic workers, the Head of Clinical Services and the registered manager. We looked around Sue Ryder – Nettlebed and observed the way staff interacted with people.
This inspection team consisted of an inspector, a pharmacist inspector, a specialist advisor with a background in nursing and an expert by experience. An expert by experience is a person who has personal experience of using or caring for someone who uses this type of care service.
Before the visit we looked at previous inspection reports and notifications that we had received. Services tell us about important events relating to the care they provide using a notification. We also reviewed the Provider Information Return (PIR) from the service. This is a form that asks the provider to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they plan to make. We last inspected Sue Ryder – Nettlebed on 27 January 2014 and found no concerns.
We looked at eight people’s care records including their medicine records and at a range of records about how the hospice was managed. We saw feedback from people who had used the service, and a range of audits.
Following our inspection we spoke with two social care professionals and with five people who received support from Nettlebed in their own homes.
This report was written during the testing phase of our new approach to regulating adult social care services. After this testing phase, inspection of consent to care and treatment, restraint, and practice under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) was moved from the key question ‘Is the service safe?’ to ‘Is the service effective?
The ratings for this location were awarded in October 2014. They can be directly compared with any other service we have rated since then, including in relation to consent, restraint, and the MCA under the ‘Effective’ section. Our written findings in relation to these topics, however, can be read in the ‘Is the service safe’ sections of this report.