You are here

Archived: Andrew Cohen House Good

The provider of this service changed - see new profile

All reports

Inspection report

Date of Inspection: 22 January 2014
Date of Publication: 22 February 2014
Inspection Report published 22 February 2014 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 22 January 2014, 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 given to us by the provider. We 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

We looked at how people who used the service were supported to make informed choices about the care and support they received. We found that care plans included information about the things that were important to people. We spoke to people who used the service and they told us that care staff would always seek their permission before providing care. During our visit we observed staff seeking permission from people before they carried out any support. For example, at lunch time permission was sought from people before staff assisted them to wear an apron.

Some people and their relatives were not sure if they had seen their care plan. One person told us, “The home has my care plan but I haven’t seen it. It didn’t occur to me’. One relative told us they had been fully involved in the person’s care plan and reviews. We viewed some of the care plans and found that people or their relatives were invited to sign to say that they had agreed to changes in their care plans. This meant that people were involved in the planning of their care and were able to express their opinions.

The provider may find it useful to note that review documents signed by people or their relatives were not always clear about which care plans or assessments had been discussed and agreed. We were told that mental capacity assessments and people’s wishes on planning for the future if they became unwell were regularly reviewed. However, documents sampled did not always evidence that this was the case.

People who used the service were able to discuss the support they received at regular meetings, called ‘Quality Circle.’ These provided opportunities for people to raise any issues about their care and the things that they wanted to do. It also enabled staff to consult with people about things that were happening with the service. The meetings were formally documented so that staff could refer back to issues raised and plan care in agreement with the people who used the service.

The Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DOLS) were only used when it was considered to be in the person's best interest. We found for one person that an application had been made and granted under the DOLS legislation.