You are here

Archived: Brambles Care Home

The provider of this service changed - see new profile

All reports

Inspection report

Date of Inspection: 20 August 2014
Date of Publication: 20 September 2014
Inspection Report published 20 September 2014 PDF | 89.82 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 20 August 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, talked with staff, received feedback from people using comment cards 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.

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.

People’s care needs were discussed with them prior to admission. A care plan was then implemented and was discussed with the person concerned. The assistant manager said that they gave the person a copy of the care plan, so that they could have time to read it, and make sure they agreed with the content. This was then signed by the person or their representative to confirm their agreement.

Most people came in for permanent care, but had a trial period first to ensure that they were happy with the home, and to see that the staff could meet their needs effectively. This was usually about four weeks, but could be extended if people wished. The management met with the person and their next of kin or representative at the end of the trial period, so as to ensure everyone was satisfied with the standards of care, and to discuss any concerns or changes needed.

We saw that people had a formal agreement with the home, with agreed terms and conditions of residency. This included details such as the weekly fees, an overview of the staffing, care planning processes, and arrangements for terminating the agreement. People were given a copy of the complaints procedure, in the event that they wished to make a formal complaint, or wished to contact an authorised independent service.

We saw that staff obtained people’s verbal consent for everyday care and treatments. For example, they asked people for their choice of bath, shower or wash in the mornings and evenings; asked people where they wished to go, and if they wanted to join in with activities; and ensured that people had their own choices in regards to food and where they preferred to eat their meals.

All of the people currently living in the home were able to make their own choices about their day to day activities, and most could make complex decisions. However, the management demonstrated that they understood their responsibilities under the Mental Capacity Act 2005, and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). This meant that people who lacked the mental capacity to make decisions about where they lived or the care that they needed would be appropriately supported by their family members or advocates, and by health and social care professionals, to make decisions on their behalf and in their best interests.