You are here

Archived: HQL Domiciliary Care & Outreach Support

All reports

Inspection report

Date of Inspection: 10 September 2012
Date of Publication: 17 October 2012
Inspection Report published 17 October 2012 PDF

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 10 September 2012, 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 carers and / or family members, talked with staff and talked with stakeholders.

Our judgement

Before people received any care or treatment they were asked for their consent and the provider acted in accordance with their wishes.

Reasons for our judgement

Relatives of people told us they were able to make decisions about their sons/daughters care and day to day lives and that staff sought consent. The care and support the person required was discussed with them when they first began to use the service and when any new concerns about their care arose. People said that they had discussed their support and preferred routines with staff. They received the help they needed and they were encouraged to do things for themselves.

People spoken with said the service had sought consent from the person receiving the service where possible and that all care delivered had been approved by close relatives / parents.

Before people received any care or treatment they were asked for their consent and the provider acted in accordance with their wishes. Each person had a person centred support plan, which had been developed with them or their representatives and documented their wishes and preferences in relation to how their care was provided, how they liked to spend their time and how they preferred to be supported.

Regular review of the plans and risk assessments, in consultation with people, meant that they were accurate and up to date. They provided guidance for members of staff, to ensure that identified current and ongoing care and support needs could be met consistently and safely.

People expressed their views and generally were involved in making decisions about their care. Records showed that when people had been assessed so that they could be confident they would get the help they needed.

The service may find it helpful to note that it has not ensured fully that systems and procedures with regard to mental health assessments under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 were in place and documented. (These assess the capacity that a person as to make decisions and ensure that any decisions made on people’s behalf did not compromise their human rights and rights of choice). The manager stated she will be incorporating issues around mental capacity within the care plans. This was ongoing and the manager has stated that these will all be complete for people using the service by the end of October.