You are here

All reports

Inspection report

Date of Inspection: 6 September 2012
Date of Publication: 4 October 2012
Inspection Report published 4 October 2012 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 6 September 2012, 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 carers and / or family members and talked with staff.

We used the Short Observational Framework for Inspection (SOFI). SOFI is a specific way of observing care to help us understand the experience of people who could not talk with us.

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. At our inspection we reviewed the care records of four people living at the home. In each record we saw that detailed assessments of peoples' needs had been carried out to determine the level of care that they required. To demonstrate that people had agreed to their plan of care we saw that people had signed to indicate their consent and that where a person had been unable to sign, a family member or other representative had agreed on their behalf. This demonstrated that where people could not formally agree to their care plans, relevant people had been consulted to ensure that the care and support provided would meet an individual persons need.

Where people did not have the capacity to consent, the provider acted in accordance with legal requirements. During our review of people's care records we also saw that consideration was given to the mental capacity of each individual person living in the home. An assessment was carried out to ensure that if there was a possibility a person may lack the capacity to consent to a certain decision staff would be aware of this. Records also clearly documented details of any Lasting Power of Attorney (LPA) that a person had in place. This meant that staff would be aware of when or if they needed to make decisions in the best interests of the person. We spoke to four members of staff who all demonstrated an understanding of the Mental Capacity Act. We also saw training records which confirmed that the majority of staff had completed training in this area together with the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). When we questioned staff on what action they would take if they felt a person should be deprived of their liberty they confirmed that this would be referred to the registered manager for a decision to be made. Each member of staff was also aware of the policies and procedures in place at York House and knew where to access these should they need further information or guidance.