You are here

Archived: Alexandra Care Home Good

The provider of this service changed - see new profile

All reports

Inspection report

Date of Inspection: 16, 17 April 2013
Date of Publication: 3 May 2013
Inspection Report published 3 May 2013 PDF | 84.16 KB

Before people are given any examination, care, treatment or support, they should be asked if they agree to it (outcome 2)

Not met 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 April 2013 and 17 April 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 reviewed information we asked the provider to send to us. We reviewed information sent to us by commissioners of services and talked with commissioners of services.

Our judgement

Before people received any care or treatment they were not always asked for their consent as the provider did not always act in accordance with their wishes.

Reasons for our judgement

We spoke with three people who use the service and five relative’s. Not everyone we spoke with was able to tell us about their views and experiences. This was sometimes due to them having memory problems. People who spoke with us told us they were involved in the development of their care plans and on going reviews. This was to ensure their changing needs would be recognised and met appropriately by staff.

We spoke with the relative’s of people at the home. They told us they were usually able to influence the care and treatment provided. They told us they were regular visitors at the home. Many of the relative’s told us staff from the service would contact them. Staff would let them know about any changes. This would include important decisions affecting the care of their relative. We saw the care provided within each person’s care plan was different for each person. This shows that people or their representative’s who use the service, were usually able to give valid consent to the care and support they received.

One person told us their risk assessment was discussed with them. They were able to agree to the contents of their care plan. Three of the relative’s we spoke with told us staff would talk with them first. However, two relative’s told us staff did not always seem to ask before carrying out their actions. This included checking people’s choice of food or to ensure people were suitably prepared before a task was carried out with them.

We looked at three care plans of people who use the service. The care plans did not always record the involvement of people or their relatives, which confirmed what people had told us. We saw that reviews were taking place at regular intervals. Risk assessments were in place. We saw for some things, consent was obtained before any changes were made. In one case a representative told us their relative was not able to make a decision about the food they preferred. They told us staff did not always remember to ask the relative to help with meal choices although they were present. We saw that capacity assessments were being carried out by the provider to ensure that people were able to give informed consent. The manager explained this was an area that she would look at again. This would ensure all staff acted in people’s best interests so that relative’s wherever possible were actively included.