You are here

Archived: Claremont Hospital

The provider of this service changed - see new profile

All reports

Inspection report

Date of Inspection: 15 February 2011
Date of Publication: 4 March 2011
Inspection Report published 4 March 2011 PDF

Contents menu

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

We found people who use services, where they are able; to understand and give valid consent to the care, treatment and support they receive. No gaps in assurance or areas of concern were identified during the assessment of this outcome for this location.

User experience

The hospital extracts monthly patient comments (positive and negative) from the patient surveys and these were submitted as supporting evidence. A small number of examples are set out below relevant to this outcome.

"100% service, excellent medical care with knowledgeable professionals" (July 2010).

"Staff and Doctors were brilliant. Very caring and diligent. Also responsive to any questions. Thanks so much" (November 2010).

"Nurses patient and caring. I would have liked to speak to the Doctor about the diagnosis, but understand his time is limited. I hope to receive more information in the follow-up appointment" (December 2010).

Other evidence

The provider declared compliance with this outcome at this location at registration with CQC October 2010.

As part of the assessment of this location the provider submitted a 'provider compliance assessment' record for this outcome. The hospital set out information, which explained in detail how this outcome was being met, with references to supporting evidence. It is not possible to outline all the information provided. We found that the hospital has procedures in relation to consent and advance directives. It was explained that no planned surgery takes place on the same day as consultation, which has allowed time for reflection to ask for additional information prior to surgery. A rolling programme of training commenced in 2010 around the Mental Capacity Act and deprivation of liberty safeguards provided by an external facilitator.

The hospital also voluntarily provided additional supporting evidence to demonstrate compliance with this outcome.

On the site visit performed 15 February 2011 we reviewed a sample of patient notes. We found each consent form had been completed with benefits and risks of treatment along with signed and dated signatures. Discussions with patients also confirmed that medical staff had explained the surgery or procedure that was undertaken.

We have no information that suggests there are areas of non compliance with this outcome.