You are here

Archived: Chorley Medics Ltd

All reports

Inspection report

Date of Inspection: 12 December 2012
Date of Publication: 3 January 2013
Inspection Report published 3 January 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 12 December 2012 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

The provider had policies in place for seeking consent for care and treatment, which provided instructions for staff on the process for seeking informed verbal consent. We spoke with the Nominated Individual, who told us they did not obtain written consent from people who used the service because people contacted the provider directly themselves, they based their care and treatment on implied consent. Implied consent is consent which is not expressly granted by a person, but rather inferred from a person's actions.

The Nominated Individual told us that people who used the service initially made contact by telephone and although not a walk-in service, some people did attend the on-site health centre without prior appointment and were assessed and prioritised for a consultation with a Clinician.

When a person first made contact with the provider, they spoke with call handlers who recorded basic information such as the persons’ contact details, their symptoms and any other information relating to their health or medical history. The call would then be logged for assessment and advice by a Clinician. An appointment may be made to attend the centre for a face to face consultation with a General Practitioner (GP), or a home visit arranged when clinically appropriate.

The Nominated Individual told us that the GPs clearly explained the process to people who used the service and discussed the treatment options with them during their consultation, allowing them to make an informed decision on whether they wanted to go ahead with a treatment or not.

There was a record in place for GP’s to document when a person refused treatment and the reasons for the refusal. The Nominated Individual told us that no person had yet refused to receive treatment. We looked at two peoples’ medical records, which included information about their preferences, such as if they did not want to be resuscitated or did not want to be admitted to hospital after the GP consultation. The Nominated Individual told us that, whenever possible, they carried out treatments in accordance with peoples’ individual preferences.

The Nominated Individual told us that if a person lacked the capacity to make their own decisions, they would be accompanied by their representatives. The Nominated Individual told us that verbal consent was sought from the parents or guardians of children prior to carrying out any treatments. Where a person was unable to speak English, the staff were able to use an interpreter.