You are here

Archived: Allied Healthcare - Newbury

All reports

Inspection report

Date of Inspection: 8 July 2014
Date of Publication: 8 August 2014
Inspection Report published 08 August 2014 PDF | 86.98 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 8 July 2014, 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 carers and / or family members, talked with staff 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. We looked at a sample of ten people’s care files. Each contained a copy of the provider’s ‘Consent/Agreement to Care Plan’ form, signed by the person receiving care or their representative. In each case the consent form was dated after the latest review of the care plan. Where they were able, people receiving care also signed the timesheets confirming that the staff had attended for the given times. We were shown examples of these. People also provided written consent where the agency was responsible for supporting their medication.

We spoke with ten people supported by the agency and six family representatives. Each told us that the staff also sought the consent of people or their representatives before providing day-to-day care. We spoke with six staff as part of this inspection. The staff described how they sought people’s consent to care and to medication, where the agency managed this on their behalf. They explained how they might explain to the person, the importance of the aspect of care which was being refused. Staff told us that ongoing refusals of care were recorded in the care notes and reported to the office. We saw that one person’s care plan included an agreement to contact the family in the event the person refused care.

These actions showed that staff obtained people’s consent to care and recorded and reported where this was not given in order to safeguard people.