You are here

Archived: Oulton Abbey Residential & Nursing Home Good

This service is now registered at a different address - see new profile

All reports

Inspection report

Date of Inspection: 25 July 2013
Date of Publication: 17 August 2013
Inspection Report published 17 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 25 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 and talked with staff.

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

People who used the service that we spoke with told us that staff always explained and asked their permission when they provided care and support. One person said: “The staff are very good, they always state what they intend to do and ask if it is alright with me. They would never do anything that I did not want them to do”.

We looked at the care plans and documentation for three people to see how the service made sure that consent for people’s care and treatment was obtained.

In one of the plans we looked at we saw that a person had a sore area on their body. We saw a care plan in place to tell staff how to support the person. We saw that a photograph had been taken to show the affected limb. We saw that verbal consent had been obtained from the person and their representative for the photographs to be taken.

In another of the care plans we saw that an assessment had been made in relation to the safety of the person. The use of bedrails had been identified to reduce the risk of the person falling out of bed. It was recorded that the person would be unable to fully comprehend why the bedrails were needed so consent for their use had been gained from the representative. This meant that the service was acting in the best interests of the person.

People are able to make the decision that they do not wish to be resuscitated in the event of severe illness and to plan for their end of life care. Sometimes people are unable to make such decisions for themselves because of incapacity or frailty. Where this is the case a best interest decision can be made on behalf of the person. These decisions must be recorded and authorised by a medical professional. There are clear guidelines to abide by to ensure the document is correctly and fully completed. We looked at a care record where a do not attempt to resuscitate agreement (DNAR) was in place. The person had the capacity to make this important decision and discussion had taken place with the person’s relatives and GP. This meant that care was provided in accordance with the person’s wishes.