You are here

Archived: Farnham Dialysis Unit

This service is now registered at a different address - see new profile

All reports

Inspection report

Date of Inspection: 8 January 2014
Date of Publication: 8 February 2014
Inspection Report published 08 February 2014 PDF | 85.93 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 8 January 2014, 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 and talked with staff.

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

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

On the day of the inspection visit the unit was very busy. We spoke at length with one person who used the service, two members of staff, case tracked three people’s care notes and observed care and treatment being given to people who used the service.

We saw in two of the three care files we reviewed, that prior to people being accepted for care by the service, they had a pre-treatment assessment with the renal consultant when a ‘Patient consent form’ was signed and dated. We were told this form was signed at the service user’s first visit when a diagnosis was made that they were suitable for dialysis. In another care file we reviewed we saw a ‘Medical authorisation form’ was also completed, signed and dated. This particular form was used for service users who were unable to make decisions. The form is based upon the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and was produced by the provider.

This meant the provider ensured that where service users were able, they gave valid consent to their examination, care and support and treatment they received. For those service users who had been unable to give valid consent, the provider acted within the law.

One person told us, “I can’t remember signing any form. I gave verbal consent, because I knew if I did not have dialysis I would be dead. I was aware of the risks and benefits (Chemotherapy and dialysis). I understood what was told to me and if something was not clear I asked for clarification”. We checked the care records of this person and found they had signed and dated their consent form. This meant people signed and dated their consent to care form.