You are here

Eastfield Farm Residential Home Limited Good

All reports

Inspection report

Date of Inspection: 28 June 2011
Date of Publication: 8 July 2011
Inspection Report published 8 July 2011 PDF

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

Our judgement

People were helped to understand their care provision and there were arrangements in place to support people with decision making and consent. However, some issues regarding capacity to consent needed further consideration.

User experience

People told us that they are encouraged to make day to day decisions about their lives.

Other evidence

We saw that information was displayed in the home about the Mental Capacity Act 2005, the Independent Mental Capacity Advocate (IMCA) service and about other advocacy services.

Some staff at the home had undertaken training on mental capacity and deprivation of liberty. We discussed mental capacity, consent to care and decision making with the manager and with staff. We found that there was some understanding about when best interest meetings should be held and of the concepts of mental capacity and deprivation of liberty.

We were told that some people living at the home who lacked capacity did not have relatives so there would need to be best interest meetings held for any major decision making. We advised the manager that best interest meetings may also need to be arranged for people who had relatives or other people to speak on their behalf.

The care needs assessment that was undertaken by the home included a section where any advanced decisions could be recorded. Whenever possible, people had signed care plans or care assessments to acknowledge that they had agreed to their care provision.

People told us that they were encouraged to make day to day decisions about their lives.

Prior to our site visit we had received information about staff purchasing a lottery ticket each week for a person living at the home who lacked capacity. The manager told us that this was not the national lottery but a ‘bonus ball’ competition that was held each week for residents. The money raised was shared between the winning resident and a local charity. Although the intention of staff was to ensure that people did not ‘miss out’ on an activity, the manager acknowledged that the person concerned did not have capacity; we agreed that steps should be taken to decide whether this particular activity was appropriate for people who lacked the capacity to consent. In addition to this, the activity raised questions about people giving consent to money being given to a charity.