You are here

Archived: Peacehaven

All reports

Inspection report

Date of Inspection: 7 November 2013
Date of Publication: 3 December 2013
Inspection Report published 03 December 2013 PDF | 78.05 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 carried out a visit on 7 November 2013, observed how people were being cared for, checked how people were cared for at each stage of their treatment and care and talked with people who use the service. We talked with staff and reviewed information sent to us by commissioners of services.

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

During the day of our inspection, we saw that people who lived at the home were supported and encouraged to make their own decisions about their care and support. Care staff were friendly and courteous in their interaction with people. We heard staff ask one person, “Would you like to come for a walk?” The person responded with a smile and left the room with the member of staff.

We found that people moved around the home, joined in activities and ate when they wanted to. Care staff we spoke with knew people’s preferences. When one person came down for a late breakfast, staff knew what they would like to eat. Care staff told us that X always preferred a late breakfast. Care staff knew which people would join in the morning’s activity with enthusiasm and which people preferred to listen and watch.

In the two care plans we looked at, we saw that people or their relatives had signed to say they consented to be cared for and supported by staff. We saw that staff regularly reviewed people’s care plans with them, to make sure they agreed with any changes. One monthly review of care was marked, “X nodded/shook head.” This meant that people were regularly asked for their on-going consent to care.

In the staff office, we saw that several people’s care plans had recently been reviewed and updated. The updated care plans were ready for people, or their relatives or representatives, to read and sign. This meant that before people received any care or support they were asked for their consent and the provider acted in accordance with their wishes.