You are here

All reports

Inspection report

Date of Inspection: 30 December 2010
Date of Publication: 9 February 2011
Inspection Report published 9 February 2011 PDF

Contents menu

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

Our judgement

Staff obtained consent to carry out care practices from people who were able to give it but there were inadequate processes to identify and support people who lacked the capacity to give informed consent. Not all care practices promoted and respected people's privacy and dignity.

User experience

A person with whom we spoke commented, "I like it here. My room has recently been changed. I picked the colour".

Other evidence

In the main lounge area, we saw four high street-purchased listening monitors. We asked the manager and another staff member on duty of the reason for these. The manager told us that the devices are used by the night staff to monitor people in their rooms. When we asked the manager whether consent to their use within people’s rooms had been obtained, it was confirmed that consent had not been sought or obtained. The information about the use of monitors was not detailed within any individual’s plan of care.

One person using the service was terminally ill. A preferred priorities of care document had been completed, outlining the person's wishes for their care, treatment and support in managing their condition. This had been completed with the person's relatives and GP. The provider told us that service users are involved in the process of completing their overall support plans to ensure consistency in working as a care team. The provider confirmed that service users would at all times have either a family member, advocate or key worker looking out for their best interests, supporting individuals to make decisions about treatments and change of care needs. People would be presented with options and the outcome of refusing treatment and given time to make a decision. If needed, a mental capacity act assessment would be completed.

We observed that, whilst additional measures and steps had been taken to record the preferred priorities of care for one person, there was limited information held within other people's care plans regarding their preferred priorities of care, end of life arrangements and consent.

Staff training records showed that most staff have received training in mental capacity.