You are here

The Hydro Domiciliary Care Agency

All reports

Inspection report

Date of Inspection: 16 April 2013
Date of Publication: 11 June 2013
Inspection Report published 11 June 2013 PDF

Before people are given any examination, care, treatment or support, they should be asked if they agree to it (outcome 2)

Not met 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 16 April 2013, checked how people were cared for at each stage of their treatment and care and talked with carers and / or family members. We talked with staff, reviewed information given to us by the provider and talked with other authorities.

Our judgement

People using the service were not always asked for their consent before they received care or treatment. The provider did not act in accordance with legal requirements where people did not have the capacity to consent.

Reasons for our judgement

People using the service were not always asked for their consent before receiving care or treatment. We looked at the care records of two people using the service. One person had given their signed consent to allow information about them to be shared as necessary. However, there was no recorded evidence that they and the other person had agreed to their planned care. The care plans included space for the person to sign to indicate their agreement and involvement, but neither person had signed this.

We found that it was not clear from the records we looked at whether anyone was appointed to make decisions on the person’s behalf, such as a welfare attorney. This meant that the appropriate person may not be involved in important decisions about a person's care.

Where people did not have the capacity to consent, the provider did not act in accordance with legal requirements. We found that suitable arrangements were not in place to establish, and act in accordance with, the best interests of people using the service. This is required by the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). This law provides a system of assessment and decision making to protect people who do not have capacity to give their own consent for their care or treatment. The records we saw did not have evidence of capacity assessments and best interest decisions for people who were unable to provide their own consent. For example, one person’s relative had signed their tenancy agreement. There was no assessment of the person’s capacity regarding this and no evidence of an assessment of how their best interests had been considered.