You are here

All reports

Inspection report

Date of Inspection: 30 January 2014
Date of Publication: 22 February 2014
Inspection Report published 22 February 2014 PDF | 72.49 KB

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 30 January 2014, 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 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 inspection we spoke with two people who were waiting for their treatment to start. They were both very happy with the treatment they received and told us that the dentists always explained about the treatment they were having. They confirmed that they had signed the treatment plan and consent form and had been given a copy of this when their treatment commenced.

We discussed with the registered manager how the service ensured that people had the capacity to provide consent and what they would do if they felt that someone lacked capacity. They were familiar with the term 'best interests' and understood the process that would be followed if someone needing treatment from them lacked capacity. This showed us that where people did not have the capacity to consent, the provider acted in accordance with legal requirements.

We looked at the treatment records of four people who used the service that were held electronically and in paper from. Treatment history was recorded on the electronic system but the paper records included other records including the treatment plans and consent form signed by the person concerned. This confirmed that the required consent had been obtained.