You are here

Archived: Strathmore House

The provider of this service changed - see old profile

All reports

Inspection report

Date of Inspection: 2 July 2013
Date of Publication: 11 July 2013
Inspection Report published 11 July 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 2 July 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, talked with staff and talked with commissioners of services.

We used the Short Observational Framework for Inspection (SOFI). SOFI is a specific way of observing care to help us understand the experience of people who could not talk with us.

Our judgement

Before people received any support, care or treatment they were asked for their consent and the provider acted in accordance with their wishes. Where people did not have the capacity to consent, the provider acted in accordance with legal requirements.

Reasons for our judgement

Where people did not have the capacity to consent, the provider acted in accordance with legal requirements.

Through speaking with a member of staff and observing staff working, we noted that there was a system in place to obtain people’s consent about their activities of daily living. These activities included gaining a person’s consent to be supported to wear a cloth tabard. This tabard was to protect the person’s own clothing from food and drink spillages.

Staff who we spoke with demonstrated that they were knowledgeable about respecting people’s decisions about their support and care. This included encouraging and supporting a person to take part in recreational activities when they were, initially, reluctant to do to so.

From our examination of four out of 18 sets of people’s care records, we found sufficient recorded evidence to demonstrate that people’s wishes were obtained about any potential health treatments, including emergency treatments. In addition, decisions about their end-of-life care and treatment were taken into account and recorded.

The care records that we reviewed provided written evidence that people, or their representatives, had given consent for the person to be photographed and also to be made safe when in bed, with the use of bed rails.

Information about general and mental health advocacy services was publicly held for staff, visitors and for people who used the service to access if they had a need to use these independent, representative services.