You are here

All reports

Inspection report

Date of Inspection: 9 June 2014
Date of Publication: 5 July 2014
Inspection Report published 05 July 2014 PDF | 81.32 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 9 June 2014, observed how people were being cared for and talked with people who use the service. We talked with carers and / or family members and talked with staff.

Our judgement

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

Reasons for our judgement

During this inspection we spoke with five people who lived in the home and one visitor. We observed and listened to how staff interacted with people and we looked at the records that were kept.

We observed staff talking with people in a respectful manner. All of the people we spoke with told us there were no rigid rules or routines in the home. They were able to decide how they wanted to spend their time and they were able to go to bed and get up when they chose. We saw that people were consulted discreetly about assistance with their personal care. We saw that people were free to move around the home at will and could spend time in the privacy of their own room if they chose to.

Records showed that the people living in the home had been involved in the assessment before they moved in. We saw that people had been asked about their likes, dislikes and preferences in relation to their daily lives. People’s identified needs were included in their care plans when they moved to the home. We saw that people had signed to say they agreed with their care plan. The staff we spoke with were able to tell us what people’s likes, dislikes and preferences were. For example, one person had stated they liked their own company and wanted to stay in their room and read. This person told us staff knew this and it was not an issue. They told us their meals were taken to them and staff were available when they needed assistance. This meant people were consulted about how they wanted their care delivered and staff acted in accordance with their wishes.

People living at the home could make their own choices and decisions on an everyday basis. Staff we spoke with told us that if people decided they did not want to do something it was not a problem. For example, if people chose not to have a shower they would be asked at another time. If people chose not to have the flu vaccination the importance of it would be explained to people but if they did not want it that choice was respected.

If there were any situations where the manager thought people may not able to make an informed decision then a mental capacity assessment had been undertaken. For example, we saw one person had an assessment in relation to moving into the home. The outcome had been that the person was able to consent and the reasoning behind this decision was detailed. This meant decisions were only made for people when they were not able to do this for themselves and it was in their best interest to do so.

A 'Deprivation of Liberty' (DoLS) is completed by services when they have to place restrictions on a person that may amount to a deprivation of their liberty. No DoLS applications had been made in respect of any of the people who lived at the home.

Discussions with the manager showed that she was aware of the requirements under this legislation. We discussed developments in the legislation arising from recent legal judgements. The manager was to look into this further to ensure the provider continued to act in accordance with legal requirements.