You are here

Archived: Cedar Lodge Care Home Ltd

All reports

Inspection report

Date of Inspection: 30 October 2013
Date of Publication: 29 November 2013
Inspection Report published 29 November 2013 PDF | 84.15 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 October 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 and talked with staff.

Our judgement

The provider had systems in place to gain and review consent from people who used the service.

Reasons for our judgement

We observed the care and support given to people who lived at the home. We saw that staff spoke kindly to people, and gave them time to respond. For example, when staff asked a person a question or offered to help them we saw that staff had been patient and waited for people to respond. People told us they would tell the staff if they were not happy about anything. “Staff always ask me if I need help with anything”. “I know I only need to ask”. “Staff always check if I am OK or I need anything”.

During this inspection we looked at three care records to review how people had recorded their consent to care and treatment. We found examples where people had been involved in planning and the decisions made about their care. A comment in one person’s care plan included: “Would like to be informed of activities to enable X (the person) to decide if X (the person) would like to participate”. We saw other examples where people’s wishes had been recorded. For example, people’s preferred names had been recorded and we observed staff used these. This meant people’s wishes were suitably assessed and recorded that made sure their rights were upheld.

We found that people had been asked for their consent before they were given any care or treatment and staff had acted in accordance with their wishes. People told us that staff: “Always ask me before they do anything, and they talk to me while they are helping me, which is nice”. “I always let staff know what I need and they listen to me”.

We saw staff asked people if they needed help with their personal care and gave them time to respond. Staff told us that they asked people and supported them to make decisions in their everyday lives. This meant that staff recognised the importance of ensuring people agreed to any provision of care before they carried it out.

The provider told us that support would be obtained when people were unable to consent to their care or where decisions needed to be made on their behalf. For example, support from relatives, advocates, social workers or medical professionals would be sought in these instances. This meant that people were kept fully informed about the care available to them and were supported to make informed decisions about their care and treatment.