You are here

Archived: Claremont Lodge Care Home Good

The provider of this service changed - see new profile

All reports

Inspection report

Date of Inspection: 16 October 2013
Date of Publication: 9 November 2013

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 16 October 2013, 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.

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

We spoke with three people who used the service, two visitors, examined seven care plans and daily records and observed interactions between people and staff. We spoke with four staff members. We also examined the provider's documentation in relation to consent to care and treatment. The people we spoke with told us that staff always asked before offering care or support. Our observations confirmed this. We heard staff using phrases such as, "It's up to you..." and "Do you need help or can you manage?...". One person said, "It's entirely up to me how my day goes. The staff fit round me but they help if I need it". Another told us, "I've been quite ill lately and had to see my GP a few times but they never call them without asking me first".

The care plans and daily records we looked at provided evidence that consent had been sought before treatment was given or care and support offered. For example, people's written consent was obtained before administering influenza vaccination and also before taking people's photographs when required for identification purposes. The care plans were devised with the involvement and written consent of people and their families We noted that mental capacity assessments were carried out before admission to the home in order to gauge people's ability to make decisions for themselves. It was repeated after admission to the home. This meant that the home was able to understand what care and support was required to ensure people gained as much control as possible over their daily lives. On our visit to the home, we noted that no-one was subject to Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS).

The staff we spoke with had a clear understanding of the implications of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 in areas such as the general principles of consent and acting in people's best interests. We found evidence that staff had undertaken relevant training in this area. This meant that staff were able to provide care consistent with the law. One staff member said, "It's important that people are involved in their care. It's obvious and we always do our best to make it happen".