You are here

Archived: Monet Lodge

This service is now registered at a different address - see new profile

All reports

Inspection report

Date of Inspection: 13 January 2012
Date of Publication: 3 February 2012
Inspection Report published 3 February 2012 PDF | 43.45 KB

Before people are given any examination, care, treatment or support, they should be asked if they agree to it (outcome 2)

Meeting this standard

We checked that people who use this service

  • Where they are able, give valid consent to the examination, care, treatment and support they receive.
  • Understand and know how to change any decisions about examination, care, treatment and support that has been previously agreed.
  • Can be confident that their human rights are respected and taken into account.

How this check was done

We reviewed all the information we hold about this provider, carried out a visit on 13/01/2012, observed how people were being cared for, looked at records of people who use services, talked to staff and talked to people who use services.

Our judgement

People using this service can be confident that their human rights are respected because the service has effective procedures in place to assess capacity to consent and what to do if people cannot consent. These procedures are monitored and reviewed.

User experience

We spoke to some of the people who use services. They told us that they were allowed to choose what they do. Not all the people who use services were able or wanted to speak to us. We also spoke to family members who told us that they felt very involved in their relative's care. They were invited to meetings to discuss decisions affecting their relative.

Other evidence

The hospital looks after patients who are detained under the Mental Health Act and informal patients, who are not detained. We reviewed five sets of records and found that capacity was assessed and recorded regularly.

There were clear procedures in place, and we saw evidence to show these were followed in practice, for people who were unable to give consent for their care and treatment.

Patients at the hospital had access to advocacy support from Rethink. We saw evidence that the hospital also referred people to be supported by the Independent Mental Capacity Advocate service. Staff told us that if there was a change in a person's condition, then capacity would be reassessed. Capacity assessments were detailed and supported by regular assessments of the patient's mental state.

Where people lacked capacity and were not detained under the Mental Health Act, we saw evidence of best interest meetings being held to ensure their rights were protected.

Following the last visit of the Mental Health Act commissioner, the service had put in place arrangements to ensure that the outcome of the second opinion approved doctor (SOAD) was discussed with patients. There had been no visit from a SOAD since the new arrangements.

We observed how people were cared for. Staff treated patients with respect. They explained to people what they were going to do before they started. If people refused care, they respected their wishes. People were offered choices where possible and their decisions were respected.

Staff told us how they supported people to have as much choice as they were able. Patients had personal support plans which identified their preferences.