You are here

Goyt Valley House Care Home Requires improvement

All reports

Inspection report

Date of Inspection: 24 January 2014
Date of Publication: 13 February 2014
Inspection Report published 13 February 2014 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 24 January 2014, 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.

Where people did not have the capacity to consent, the provider acted in accordance with legal requirements.

Reasons for our judgement

At our last inspection of the home on the 5 December 2012 we found that the provider was not always obtaining consent from people who were able to lawfully consent on others behalf. We also found that where people lacked capacity, arrangements were not being made to establish and act in accordance with people’s best interests. We reviewed the provider’s action plan as part of this inspection of the home.

We found that systems were in place for people to sign a copy of their personal care plan to demonstrate their agreement to the care and support they received. We reviewed four care records and found that three of the records had been signed by the person or their relative. We spoke with the person who had not signed their personal care plan. They told us that us they had lived at the home for a number of years and were very happy with the care they received.

We saw that appropriate capacity assessments were in place where people lacked the capacity to make decisions about aspects of their care. We also saw that decisions about their care were made in their best interests. For example, we saw a best interest decision had been made for a person who lacked capacity with regards to them receiving support to get out of bed. Capacity assessments are required as part of The Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) which is used to protect people who are unable to make important decisions that may be necessary for their care and welfare.

Where people did not have the capacity to make decisions about their care, we saw that their records contained details of people who had the legal authority to make decisions on their behalf. For example, Lasting Powers of Attorneys and Enduring Power of Attorneys. This meant that staff would know who to consult in relation to specific decisions such as finances.

Staff told us how they gained people’s consent. This included asking people if they would like help and by offering them choices. During our visit we saw that staff communicated well with people and involved them in their care. This included offering people choices of drinks, food and for aspects of personal care. This showed that people’s views were obtained about their care.

We saw that records were in place where people had made advanced decisions about their care and treatment. For example, do not attempt to resuscitate decisions. Where people lacked capacity, their family members had been consulted and a best interest decision had been made by a health care professional.