You are here

Archived: Kingsthorpe View Care Home Good

The provider of this service changed - see old profile

The provider of this service changed - see new profile

All reports

Inspection report

Date of Inspection: 5 June 2013
Date of Publication: 10 July 2013
Inspection Report published 10 July 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 5 June 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 sent to us by other regulators or the Department of Health and talked with other regulators or the Department of Health.

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 care or treatment they were not asked for their consent and the provider did not consistently act in accordance with their wishes.

Reasons for our judgement

Before people received any care or treatment they were not always asked for their consent and the provider did not always act in accordance with their wishes.

We spoke to two relatives of people using the service. They told us they were happy with the care their relative received.

To help us understand the experiences of people living in the home we used our SOFI (Short Observational Framework for Inspection) tool during the visit. The SOFI tool allows us to spend time watching what is going on in a service and helps us to record how people spend their time, the type of support they get and whether they have positive experiences.

During lunch we observed a person being moved with a sling from a wheelchair to a chair. The member of staff did not explain to the person what was happening when carrying out this manoeuvre. The brake was not on the wheelchair so the person moved forward without knowing what was happening.

We looked at the care plans for eight people who were using the service to make sure these covered people’s consent to care arrangements. Under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 we saw some evidence that best interest or capacity assessments for people who lack capacity to make decisions about certain aspects of their care had been considered. The Mental Capacity Act 2005 puts safeguards in place when people do not have the mental capacity to make an informed choice. A mental capacity assessment had been completed in some care plans, but not others. This meant that there was a risk that some people living within the home may not have their best interests considered.

Three of the care plans we looked at contained a ‘do not attempt cardiopulmonary resuscitation’ document which had been signed by a GP with the consent of a relative of a person using the service. There was no mental capacity assessment provided within the care plan to support this decision. On the day of our inspection the manager said they would speak to the GP regarding this documentation.

Some of the staff we spoke to were not aware of the safeguards aimed to protect people in care homes, from being inappropriately deprived of their liberty. We asked three staff if they had heard of the Mental Capacity Act and two said, “No”. One member of staff said, “I don’t know what this is.” We also saw records on the day of our inspection which demonstrated 36% of staff were out of date with their Mental Capacity Act training. This meant people using the service could not be assured that all staff were able to take account of a person’s capacity to make their own decision when staff provided care.