You are here

Archived: Ayrshire House Good

The provider of this service changed - see new profile

All reports

Inspection report

Date of Inspection: 22 May 2013
Date of Publication: 21 June 2013
Inspection Report published 21 June 2013 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 22 May 2013, 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 talked with commissioners of services.

Our judgement

Before people received any care or treatment they were asked for their consent and the provider acted in accordance with their wishes. Where people did not have the capacity to consent, the provider acted in accordance with legal requirements.

Reasons for our judgement

People who used the service told us they felt staff listened to and respected their wishes. People told us they had a choice of what time they went to bed and got up. One person told us, “The staff ask me and explain things to me. Yes, I think the staff treat me with respect and dignity.”

We looked at four people’s care files. We saw people had signed their care plans. This showed the person had been involved in the development of their care plan and had agreed with what was recorded. We saw three monthly reviews were completed with people who used the service and care plans were reviewed yearly unless required to be done sooner.

Before people received any care or treatment they were asked for their consent and the provider acted in accordance with their wishes. The care files we looked at were person centred and reflective of people’s needs. Care staff spoken with told us they found the care file documentation provided them with the information and guidance they needed to meet people’s needs.

The care workers we spoke with told us they tried to involve people as fully as possible in their care. They said they gained people’s consent before any care or support was provided. They told us most people could verbally express their views, wishes and choices. They said some people communicated their choices and preferences by non verbal communication for example, using gestures and body language.

One care worker said, “I continually ask people and gain consent when providing care, I show respect and dignity all the time.” And, “If someone is not able to give consent or I’m not sure I would ask the manager.”

Another care worker said, “I explain, advice and give reassurance and support to help people understand.”

We asked the care workers we spoke with what they would do if a person was not able to give consent. The provider may find it useful to note that both care workers showed limited understanding about what the legislation and practice was for people that lacked capacity to consent. Both workers also showed limited or no understanding of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (2007), again legislation that protects people’s human rights.

Where people did not have the capacity to consent, the provider acted in accordance with legal requirements. In the care files we looked at, we saw an example of where a person did not have capacity to consent with a particular care need. We saw the correct procedure for assessing capacity had been completed and a best interest decision was documented, dated and signed appropriately.