You are here

Options Roxby House Outstanding

All reports

Inspection report

Date of Inspection: 10 July 2013
Date of Publication: 13 August 2013
Inspection Report published 13 August 2013 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 10 July 2013, observed how people were being cared for and checked how people were cared for at each stage of their treatment and care. We talked with people who use the service, talked with carers and / or family members, talked with staff and talked with commissioners of services.

We were supported on this inspection by an expert-by-experience. This is a person who has personal experience of using or caring for someone who uses this type of care service.

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

Before people received any care or treatment they were asked for their consent and the provider acted in accordance with their wishes. We saw that people’s wishes and preferences were recorded in each of the six care files we checked.

Relatives and people who used the service told us the manager had talked to them about things that affected their lives and they had agreed with it.

The staff we spoke with gave good examples of how they offered people choice and involved them in making decisions about their lives.

Where people did not have the capacity to consent, the provider acted in accordance with legal requirements. The manager told us that if someone could not make an informed decision other people were involved in looking at what was in their best interests. This was confirmed by staff during discussion. Evidence of records of meetings to discuss these situations were seen in individual care records.

The staff we spoke with told us they had received training about protecting people’s rights. Their comments demonstrated an understanding of their role in promoting people’s rights and acting in their best interests.

We observed that people were able to convey their views to staff and had developed their own ways of communicating with them.