You are here

Archived: St Marks House

All reports

Inspection report

Date of Inspection: 12 October 2013
Date of Publication: 13 November 2013
Inspection Report published 13 November 2013 PDF | 79.6 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 12 October 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 and talked with staff.

Our judgement

People were asked for their consent before care and treatment was delivered.

Reasons for our judgement

We found that staff obtained consent from people before they provided care and treatment. Records showed consent forms that had been signed by people, where possible. We observed one staff member talking to a person about their meal choices for the week and the person then signed their records to consent to this. One staff member said, “I always ask people what they want. I explain what I am going to do.”

We saw that when people did not give their consent, staff respected this. For example, staff respected that one person wanted to spend the day in their own room. We saw staff encourage the person to eat, drink and socialise throughout the day so they were not isolated. We found that concerns about people refusing care and treatment on a regular basis was appropriately escalated when necessary. Records detailed the care and treatment that was declined by people so that this could be followed up.

The training records showed that staff had not received training for the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) and deprivation of liberty safeguards (DoLS). However, staff members described what their duties were under the Act. We found that one person’s capacity had recently been assessed as part of a DoLS application that was made. Records showed that this situation was discussed with other healthcare professionals and their advice was followed. Whilst arrangements were in place around assessing mental capacity, the provider may find it useful to note that staff should receive regular MCA and DoLS training to ensure they are consistently following the required practice.