You are here

Archived: The Koppers Residential Home

The provider of this service changed - see new profile

All reports

Inspection report

Date of Inspection: 20 January 2011 and 20 January 2012
Date of Publication: 22 February 2011
Inspection Report published 22 February 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

The provider had systems and procedures in place that ensured that the consent of people using the service and/or their representatives was obtained for any care, support or treatment that they received.

User experience

During our visit we saw evidence to show that people’s rights to refuse treatment has been understood and respected. An example of this was seen when we saw a person who had limited communication skills due to dementia being offered their regular medication at lunchtime. They indicated they did not want to take the medication. The care staff were patient and tried to encourage the person and returned a little while later to offer again, but when the person again refused the care staff respected the person's wishes.

Other evidence

The providers gave us information before our visit about the various ways they consult with people and/or their relatives or representatives about the care they offer. We also saw evidence in the care plan files of their discussions and involvement with people, their relatives and specialist health or social care professionals.

The care plan files contained evidence of risk assessments carried out on a number of areas including nutrition, hydration, skin care, mobility, and any other health risks relevant to that person. Where risks had been identified the home we saw evidence of the actions put in place to reduce the risk. There were records in place to show who had been consulted and involved in the decisions.

The provider talked about the Mental Capacity Act and Deprivation of Liberties and was aware of the various procedures that must be followed where decisions may need to be made on behalf of people.