You are here

Archived: Lorne House

The partners registered to provide this service have changed - see new profile

All reports

Inspection report

Date of Inspection: 9 October 2013
Date of Publication: 25 October 2013
Inspection Report published 25 October 2013 PDF | 73.8 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 9 October 2013, observed how people were being cared for and talked with people who use the service. We talked with carers and / or family members and talked with staff.

Our judgement

The provider had systems in place to gain and review consent from people who used the service.

Reasons for our judgement

We observed care and support given to people who lived at the home. We saw that staff spoke kindly to people, and gave them time to respond. For example, when they asked a person a question or offered to help them staff had been patient and waited for people to give their answer.

We found that people had been asked for their consent before they were given any care or support and staff had acted in accordance with their wishes. For example, during lunchtime we saw staff asked people if they needed help with their meal and gave them time to respond. None of the people wanted help and staff respected their choice. One staff member told us: “We only do what they want [people who lived at the home].” Another staff member said: “If they [people who lived at the home] don’t want it we don’t do it.” This meant that staff recognised the importance of ensuring people agreed to any provision of care before they carried it out.

We also saw that pictures and symbols were used to help people and staff understand each other. This meant that people who had difficulty speaking had ways in which they had been able to express their wishes. A relative told us how staff had helped a person to make their own decisions about consent. They said “X [the person] improved a lot because they [staff] spent time with X; they understand him. With their support X can make choices. They respect X’s decisions.” A relative who supported a person who lived at the home with their decisions said: "They always get in touch with me. There’s nothing they do that I’m not invited to speak my mind about.”

Staff told us when it had been necessary people had been supported by relatives to make their own decisions about consent. Records we read confirmed what we had been told. For example a person, who had been supported by a relative to make a decision, did not consent to treatment by their doctor. They also said they did not want this treatment in the future. The person’s wishes had been followed and records in their care plan had been changed to show this. This meant that staff could check to see what care, support or treatment a person wanted.

We saw that care records had been reviewed regularly. People and their relatives had been involved. We saw that when people’s consent had changed their wishes had been recorded.