You are here

Archived: Dean Wood Manor

All reports

Inspection report

Date of Inspection: 24 September 2013
Date of Publication: 4 October 2013
Inspection Report published 04 October 2013 PDF | 72.75 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 24 September 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 carers and / or family members and talked with staff.

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

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

Reasons for our judgement

We looked at care plans at the home and saw that there was evidence such as signatures, from the person themselves or their representatives showing that they had agreed to residing in the home and to the assessment of their needs.

There were details of conversations and meetings with family members to discuss plans of care, likes and dislikes of the person and the next of kin, relative or advocate signed on their behalf.

People were seen to be supported by staff to make choices about where they spent their day. Some people were in the lounges and some had chosen to stay in their own rooms.

We spoke to staff about their understanding of The Mental Capacity Act 2005 and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards. Staff spoken with said that they had received training on these subject matters. Staff were able to give some examples of what would be considered a restriction. For example using a bed rail to prevent people from falling out of bed. Staff said they would make decisions in the best interest of people's safety.

We spoke with relatives and they said that they had been involved in a best interest meeting with regard to their relative.