You are here

Archived: Partridge Care Centre Requires improvement

The provider of this service changed - see new profile

All reports

Inspection report

Date of Inspection: 8 August 2012
Date of Publication: 21 September 2012
Inspection Report published 21 September 2012 PDF | 76.02 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 reviewed all the information we hold about this provider, carried out a visit on 08/08/2012, observed how people were being cared for, talked to staff and talked to people who use services.

Our judgement

The provider was meeting this standard. Before people received any care or treatment they were asked for their consent and the provider acted in accordance with their wishes.

User experience

Three people that we spoke with confirmed they felt they made decisions about the care and support they received. They told us that staff respected their wishes to manage as much of their own care needs as they could and that staff asked for their agreement before providing support.

One person said, “I have a key and come and go to my room or activities as I please. I can be independent and do what I can for myself. I lived alone for years, I don’t like fuss, I like to do things my way and they let me get on with it, but they are there when I need them."

Other evidence

In our report dated March 2011, we found that improvements were required in relation to this standard. This was because further development was required to ensure that visual menu cards were available to help people make choices during mealtimes. We had also found that there were some inappropriate terms used to describe people who lived at the service and the care they required.

In our inspection of 7 and 8 August 2012, we saw that there were clear pictures of what drinks were available throughout the day. There were whiteboards used to detail what food was being served at mealtimes.

Training records showed that Dignity in Care awareness training had been attended by staff during the week of our inspection. Staff evidenced their awareness as we heard them ensuring the agreement of the person who used the service before carrying out care. For example, we overheard one member of staff asking a person, “Would you like to stay in the wheelchair or watch the telly? I’m just going to be over there. That’s your cup of tea. It’s probably very cold now. Can I make you another one?”

We saw that people either signed to agree with their care plans or if the person did not have mental capacity, that Mental Capacity Assessments were carried out to ensure that the care was carried out in their best interests. We saw that people signed consent forms in their care plans for their photographs to be taken. We noted that people were able to refuse treatment if they wished and that this was documented in care records.