You are here

St Bridget's Residential Home Requires improvement

We are carrying out a review of quality at St Bridget's Residential Home. We will publish a report when our review is complete. Find out more about our inspection reports.
All reports

Inspection report

Date of Inspection: 12 March 2013
Date of Publication: 17 April 2013
Inspection Report published 17 April 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 12 March 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

Before people received any care or treatment they were asked for their consent and the provider acted in accordance with their wishes.

During our visit we spoke to one person who had recently had a flu jab vaccination. They told us that they had had the choice of accepting or refusing the injection. We spoke to another person who told us that they had expressed a wish to reduce the amount of medication they had been taking. They said that staff had arranged for their general practitioner to visit them to discuss their wishes. Their medications had been reviewed, and reduced. We found that their final decision had been made following an informed discussion with a doctor.

We observed the manager talking to one person who was unwell. They told the person that they could request a visit from the doctor. The person decided that if their symptoms had not reduced within a certain period of time they would accept the doctor's visit. The manager respected their decision, but told them that they would monitor their condition, which the person was happy with.

We saw that one person had a Do Not Attempt Resuscitation (DNAR) form in place which had been signed by the doctor. It stated that the person had been involved in the decision. The provider might like to note that there had been no review of this DNAR since it had been completed in 2010. This meant that we were unable to evidence if the person's needs or wishes had changed.

One person we spoke to explained how staff continued to maximise their ability to make choices relating to their daily life. For example, they told us that due to their physical condition they were unable to independently choose their own clothes so staff held out clothes so that they could continue to pick what they wore. We saw that records for one person stated 'staff to make sure that they stand in front and talk slowly to give them the opportunity to lip read.'

The manager told us that each person who lived at the home had a family member, friend or representative who could support the person to make decisions if required. Care records we looked at included a statement regarding the involvement of others in people's care. It stated that family, friends or representatives were invited to be involved with the persons care, if the person was in agreement. One relative told us that their relative "had their own opinion" and could tell staff what they wanted or needed.

The provider might like to note that staff had not received Mental Capacity Act training. Records showed that the manager had attended training on the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards.