You are here

Archived: Devonshire Manor

The provider of this service changed - see new profile

All reports

Inspection report

Date of Inspection: 31 May 2013
Date of Publication: 28 June 2013
Inspection Report published 28 June 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 31 May 2013, 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 treatment they were asked for their consent and the provider acted in accordance with their wishes.

Reasons for our judgement

We spoke to three people who lived at the home, two relatives and two visitors. People who lived at the home and their relatives/visitors told us people's views were taken into account and agreement sought for care and treatment.

We looked at three care records. We saw that the provider was introducing a new assessment and care plan system called Quality Management System and was in the process of transferring people’s information over to the new system. Two out of the three care records we looked at were in the new format.

We saw that all care records were personalised and people’s preferences in how they wanted to live their life at the home were clearly documented. For example, preferences in the type of support required, daily routines, eating and drinking and hobbies/ interests were clearly documented. Care records clearly outlined what people could do independently and what they needed help with. This showed us that people had been involved in deciding what support was required and were enabled to make informed decisions about their care.

Care records showed the home supported each person's ability to consent or make decisions throughout their life at the home and at the end of life. For example records showed decisions regarding cardio pulmonary resuscitation in the event of a sudden deterioration of health were signed by the doctor and either the person who used the service or their relative/next of kin.

Where people had limited mental capacity, care plans detailed how to communicate with people so that they were able to understand and be involved in decisions about their day to day care.

We saw that the two care records in the new format contained a formal consent form which documented people’s explicit consent to care and the sharing of information with other professionals. The deputy manager told us that once the new care planning system was fully operational people’s consent decisions would be reviewed quarterly.

We spoke with three staff members. Staff we spoke with understood the need to obtain consent and people's right to refuse. They said before care was provided they explained to people what they were going to do and verbally asked for their consent. Staff told us when people were not able to give verbal consent they would observe their body language whilst providing care.

We observed that were people required support staff checked with the person before it was given. For example at lunchtime we observed staff assisting people to eat. This was done in a dignified, respectful manner and people were asked if they required assistance before it was provided. We saw that were people refused support staff respected their decision. This showed us that a person's human rights were respected and taken into account in the delivery of care.