You are here

Archived: Chaseley Bungalows

All reports

Inspection report

Date of Inspection: 13, 21 August 2014
Date of Publication: 18 September 2014
Inspection Report published 18 September 2014 PDF | 107.7 KB

Before people are given any examination, care, treatment or support, they should be asked if they agree to it (outcome 2)

Not met 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 13 August 2014 and 21 August 2014, 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 staff, reviewed information given to us by the provider and reviewed information sent to us by commissioners of services. We reviewed information sent to us by other authorities, talked with commissioners of services and talked with other authorities.

Our judgement

Where people did not have the capacity to consent, the provider had not acted in accordance with legal requirements.

Reasons for our judgement

We looked at care plans and other related documentation. We saw that people had been asked to sign consent forms to show that they agreed to specific aspects of care.

We looked at a communication book which staff used to share information. We saw that for one person a member of care staff had made a decision which related to restricting this persons access to a certain beverage. It was unclear how this decision had been made. We looked at this persons care file. No information had been documented in relation to this decision and a best interest meeting had not taken place. This persons care plan did not include updated information in relation to the decision to restrict this access, or provide staff with information about when this decision needed to be reviewed.

We discussed this with the deputy manager and they told us this would be reviewed and appropriate meetings would take place to ensure that this decision had been made appropriately.

The deputy manager told us that they had attended Mental Capacity Act (MCA) and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) training. This was to be cascaded out to other senior and care staff. However, at the time of the inspection this had not taken place.

We observed a staff conversation in relation to the administration of covert medication. Agency care staff told us that they had been told how to do this by other care staff. We looked at this persons care file and saw that the decision to administer medication covertly had been made by the persons GP and next of kin. However this information was not detailed enough to inform staff how to do this safely and effectively and did not include changes to the medication being administered. This meant that clear procedures had not been followed in practice. Decisions made in relation to people's care had not been made after appropriate best interest meetings, and decisions had not been reviewed and updated when changes to peoples care and treatment had taken place.