You are here

All reports

Inspection report

Date of Inspection: 27 December 2013
Date of Publication: 22 January 2014
Inspection Report published 22 January 2014 PDF | 77.76 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 carried out a visit on 27 December 2013, observed how people were being cared for, talked with people who use the service and talked with carers and / or family members. We talked with staff and reviewed information given to us by the provider.

Our judgement

Before people received any care or treatment they were asked for their consent and the provider acted in accordance with their wishes. Where people did not have the capacity to consent, the provider acted in accordance with legal requirements.

Reasons for our judgement

We looked at the care records for four people living at Sherdley Court. We saw evidence that people were involved in their care planning. When care plans were reviewed people signed to say they agreed with the updated care plan. They also signed to say they agreed to have the key worker who had been allocated to them.

We saw that assessments were carried out for people who had expressed an interest in moving to Sherdley Court. During the assessments it was recorded if people had the capacity to make their own decisions relating to everyday living.

An advance care plan was in place in all the care files we saw. These provided evidence that discussions had taken place with people about the care or treatment they would or would not like to receive if it became difficult for them to make their own decisions or in the case of an emergency. The advance care plans also stated who people would like to be involved in making their decisions if they were unable to do this themselves. We saw that if a person had a life-limiting condition staff had initiated a discussion around the end of life care they would prefer to receive.

The manager told us that Mental Capacity Assessments were completed for people where it was felt they did not have the capacity to make specific decisions for themselves. They said that the person, their family, keyworker and any other relevant professionals were involved in the assessment. If required these people were also involved in making a decision in the person’s best interest.

We saw that all staff had received training in the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). All the staff we spoke with confirmed they had received the training and that it was regularly updated. They all had a good understanding of the MCA and what action should be taken if a person lacked the capacity to consent or make their own decisions.

We saw that the home was in the process of carrying out a satisfaction survey. People living at the home who had responded said they were ‘always’ fully consulted and involved in the assessments and planning of their care and support needs.