You are here

All reports

Inspection report

Date of Inspection: 3, 14 January 2013
Date of Publication: 7 February 2013
Inspection Report published 7 February 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 3 January 2013 and 14 January 2013, observed how people were being cared for and talked with people who use the service. 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

Reasons for our judgement

We spoke to staff and they were clear about the importance of informed consent and that a new consent form should be obtained for every new treatment or course of treatments.

The provider did not have a formal, written consent policy however we saw that a suite of dedicated consent forms was used. These outlined the specific risks and benefits of each of the treatments offered. We also saw that there were information sheets available which were issued to patients undergoing a procedure. There was a review date set for reviewing the currency and accuracy of each information sheet and consent form. The provider may like to note that in some instances the review date had passed.

We reviewed the records of 12 people who had used the service and saw that there were appropriate and signed consent forms in all but one of the records. There was also evidence that the information sheets had been issued to people before their treatment.

We spoke to five people who had used the service during our inspection visit. They all confirmed that the risks and benefits of the treatment or procedure had been explained. One person said "The doctor explained everything very clearly and also explained the fees due. There was no ambiguity." Another person told us "They explained everything to me. They didn't over egg it. That is they certainly did not exaggerate what they could achieve."

We also saw that the provider had a procedure, followed in practice, for obtaining consent from people for the use of anonymised photographs, for example showing certain skin conditions, or 'before and after' photographs.

Shortly before our visit the provider had decided to participate in a clinical trial of a scar reducing cream. We saw that this trial had its own written protocols including a written consent procedure and documentation. We checked the record of one of the participants and saw that the consent procedure had been correctly followed. We noted that the statement of purpose of the provider indicated that no research was undertaken. The provider may wish to review and update their statement of purpose to reflect participation in such research trials.

Overall we judged that there was an effective consent policy in place which ensured that people made informed decisions about their care.