You are here

All reports

Inspection report

Date of Inspection: 5 December 2013
Date of Publication: 28 January 2014
Inspection Report published 28 January 2014 PDF | 83.31 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 5 December 2013, talked with people who use the service and talked with carers and / or family members. 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

Before people received any care or treatment they were asked for their consent and the provider acted in accordance with their wishes. Staff that we spoke with were able to explain to us the principals of the Mental Capacity Act 2005. Training records that we checked showed that staff had undergone relevant training; this was a rolling programme of training with future refresher courses planned.

We were told by a member of staff that reablement assessors making initial contact with those people requiring the service would be, “asked if they would prefer their family present for the assessment visit.” If the worker had any concerns that the person presented as unable to make decisions about their lives or understand the assessment process they would check if the person had had any previous intervention by social services and if any capacity issues had been identified.

Within the reablement assessment document, capacity issues were considered with the question, “Does mental capacity deprivation of liberty need further consideration?” We also saw that this was recorded in the reablement overview document completed for each person using the service. If the person had capacity they signed the overview assessment document themselves.

We saw support plans were signed by the person using the service. The provider acted in accordance with legal requirements where people did not have the capacity to consent. This was evidenced when we looked at a support plan for a person who had used the reablement service; the person had been assessed as lacking mental capacity. The plan had been agreed and signed by the next of kin in the person’s best interest. We were able to see that there were processes in place to consider people’s capacity and documentation in place to record this.