You are here

Archived: Forest Edge

The provider of this service changed - see new profile

All reports

Inspection report

Date of Inspection: 26 September 2013
Date of Publication: 25 October 2013
Inspection Report published 25 October 2013 PDF | 78.72 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 carried out a visit on 26 September 2013, talked with people who use the service, 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

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

We asked the assistant manager and care workers to explain how they ensured that people using the service gave their consent to care and treatment. We were told that people were asked for their consent before they received any care or treatment. We looked at four care plans and found that people who used the service had signed their care plans agreeing to the care that was to be provided. This meant that before people received any care or treatment they were asked for their consent and the provider acted in accordance with their wishes.

For people who used the service but lacked the mental capacity to make a decision we saw that the family of that person had been involved, and that a best interest decision had been made in respect of that person's care using the mental capacity assessment tool. For example, one of the care workers we spoke with told us that where a person who used the service lacked the capacity to make a decision regarding nutrition, the family of the person had been involved and a best interest decision of any changes had been agreed.

The care worker described an example where family members were asked to give their consent for a soft diet. We looked at that person's care plan and saw that the family and the person's doctor had been involved in making a best interest decision. She went on to say that the provider would always involve all relevant parties, including the family, social worker and IMCA (independent mental capacity advocacy) if applicable to make best interest decisions for people who lacked mental capacity. This meant that where people did not have the capacity to consent, the provider acted in accordance with the legal requirements of the mental capacity act.

The assistant manager told us that all care workers had undertaken training in mental capacity which related very closely to consent issues, and any mental capacity issues would be included in the persons care plan. This ensured that people's needs were fully considered in respect to decisions in their best interest about their safety and welfare. A care worker we spoke with said: "People's needs and moods can change daily and it is important to ask people how they feel, and how they want to be supported each day".