You are here

Archived: Richmond House

All reports

Inspection report

Date of Inspection: 4 November 2013
Date of Publication: 26 November 2013
Inspection Report published 26 November 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 4 November 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 and reviewed information given to us by the provider.

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 spoke with two people who lived at Richmond House. Their comments did not relate to this outcome area. We also spoke with the registered manager and three members of the staff team. We saw that people were happy with the care they received from the home and it was clear that people were adequately consulted about providing consent for the care that was provided to them.

The home had a policy and procedure for gaining consent and acting in accordance with consent. This was not available to the inspector on the day of inspection. A copy was requested for review and was subsequently received.

The home had suitable arrangements in place for obtaining, and acting in accordance with, the consent of people who used the service in relation to the care provided. We looked at documentation for two people who lived at Richmond House. We saw there was an initial contract of care and full assessment of care carried out by the home and both were signed by a representative from the home and also by the person who received the care package and/or their representative.

Management at the home told us consent was mainly gained verbally. Where it was clear a person did not have the mental capacity to understand what they were consenting to, the manager told us a family member or a person’s representative would be called upon to provide consent to care and/or a meeting with other agencies involved in providing the care package would be called upon to have a ‘best interest’ meeting to consider the best way forward for the individual. We reviewed the minutes of a multi-disciplinary meeting and discussed an instance when this had happened in relation to a decision about whether a person required a medical intervention. It was clear the management at the home understood and effectively discharged their responsibilities to ensure consent was gained for care, support and treatment for people who lived at the home.