You are here

Archived: Woodrow Cottage

The provider of this service changed - see new profile

All reports

Inspection report

Date of Inspection: 6 November 2013
Date of Publication: 5 December 2013
Inspection Report published 05 December 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 6 November 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 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. 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 support they were asked for their consent and the provider acted in accordance with their wishes. We saw that systems were in place to gain and review consent from people who use the service. We looked at care files for three people and these contained records of person centred support plans and review meetings. The meetings had been attended by people who had sufficient knowledge about the person using the service and the care and support options being considered, so that the person or their representatives could make an informed decision.

Each person had a key worker, a member of staff who could assist them to understand the risks, benefits and alternative care and support options that were available. Care plans contained picture symbols and information about how the person communicated their needs and wishes, to further assist this process.

Where people did not have the capacity to consent the provider acted in accordance with legal requirements. We saw records of mental capacity assessments and best interest meetings that had been carried out in relation to specific needs, such as surgical procedures, finances, personal care and medicines. The records of the assessment procedure gave details of the proposed support or treatment, reasons for the decisions and what methods were used to involve the person using the service. People involved in the decision making process included the person’s family members, advocates, home staff and external health and social care professionals with knowledge of the individual.

The training programme for staff included training in relation to the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005. The manager told us how the service had previously made a Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards referral. This procedure is to ensure that an individual's liberty is restricted only when it is in their best interests and there is no other way to take care of that person safely. The service had referred the matter appropriately. At the time of this inspection, there was no-one in the home who was subject to a Deprivation of Liberty procedure.