You are here

Archived: Reside at Southwood Inadequate

We are carrying out a review of quality at Reside at Southwood. We will publish a report when our review is complete. Find out more about our inspection reports.
All reports

Inspection report

Date of Inspection: 5 September 2013
Date of Publication: 9 October 2013
Inspection Report published 09 October 2013 PDF | 79.03 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 looked at the personal care or treatment records of people who use the service, carried out a visit on 5 September 2013, observed how people were being cared for and checked how people were cared for at each stage of their treatment and care. We talked with people who use the service, talked with carers and / or family members, talked with staff and reviewed information given to us by the provider. We talked with other authorities.

We used the Short Observational Framework for Inspection (SOFI). SOFI is a specific way of observing care to help us understand the experience of people who could not talk with us.

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

The three people we spoke with who lived at the home told us that their consent was always sought about any decision affecting the way they were looked after.

Two of the people we pathway tracked through the inspection were not able to be involved in how they were cared for because of a diagnosis of dementia. The other person we pathway tracked had full capacity to be involved in their care.

We saw that the person able to be involved in their care had signed their care plan, evidencing that they had consented to the way they were supported at the home.

Concerning the two people who had limited capacity to be involved in their care, we saw that mental capacity assessments had been completed and there was information for staff to inform on the areas where people could make decisions about their life.

Prior to the inspection we had received concerns that people were being got up without their consent very early in the morning. We started the inspection at 6.30am and at that time the staff were assisting one person in getting up. There were no other people up and awake at that time. The person being assisted in getting up had dementia and we saw there was a care plan in place about their daily routine. This person spent much of the day in bed or in a chair because of their frailty. We saw that a best interest decision had been made in respect of managing their skin care to make sure that they did not have any pressure areas. Their plan informed of the times they should be got up and taken back to bed for rest. The people we spoke with who were able to be involved in their care told us that the staff respected the times that they wish to get up and go to bed.

One person living at the home was subject to a Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards authorisation. This provided legal authority for the person to be kept in the home. We saw that all the required documentation was in place and that the person had an advocate to represent their interests.

All of the staff we spoke with had an understanding of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards.