You are here

Annacliffe Residential Home Good

All reports

Inspection report

Date of Inspection: 3 July 2013
Date of Publication: 31 July 2013
Inspection Report published 31 July 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 3 July 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 carers and / or family members, talked with staff and talked with commissioners of services.

We used the Short Observational Framework for Inspection (SOFI). SOFI is a specific way of observing care to help us understand the experience of people who could not talk with us.

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

We spoke with the manager, staff and people who lived and worked at Annacliffe Residential Home. We observed care being provided at the home and spoke to relatives.

Staff had a good understanding of what consent meant. They told us they obtained consent for people's overall care, as well as on a day-to-day basis. One staff member explained, "Not giving people a choice would deprive them". Another staff member stated that staff met privately with people on admission and discussed their care needs and plan with them. The staff member told us, “We look at what their needs are and how they want to be supported”.

Prior to our inspection we received information of concern that people were got up out of bed very early. On our arrival at 6.50 am we found some people up and dressed in the lounge. However, staff explained that this was as a result of people’s choice. Some people with dementia refused to return to their bed, whilst others wanted to get up early. All the people we spoke with confirmed that they decided when they wanted to get up.

However, when we checked care records some files did not record people’s preferences around getting up times. The provider might like to note that in doing so, this provided recorded evidence of consent. The manager stated that this would be updated.

We observed staff consistently asking people what they needed throughout our inspection. The staff supported people to make basic decisions. This included what to eat and drink, as well as what they wanted to do. Where people were struggling to understand what was being said, staff used alternative options. This included writing things down.

One person told us, “I’m given choices and they help me to make decisions about my care”. Another person said, “They don’t do things for me without asking first”.

Relatives we spoke with confirmed that staff consistently sought consent whenever they engaged with people. One relative told us, "I went to a few homes before bringing my dad here – we both agreed it was the best home we looked at. We don’t regret that decision".

We looked at the care records that the service held, which contained space designated for formal evidence of consent. Annacliffe used an electronic care file system. We were told that the consent section was printed off to obtain people’s signatures or their relatives where appropriate. However, the provider might like to note that some formal signatures for consent to care were not in place. The manager stated that this would be updated.

Staff had received training in Mental Capacity and Deprivation of Liberty and had a good understanding of its principals. This should enable them to assess people's mental capacity should there be concerns about their ability to make decisions for themselves.