You are here

Archived: Woodland Court Residential Home

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: 22 May 2013
Date of Publication: 9 August 2013
Inspection Report published 09 August 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 22 May 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

Before people received any 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

Before people received any care or treatment they were asked for their consent and the provider acted in accordance with their wishes. We saw that care plans included information about how each person communicated, both verbally and non-verbally. This meant that staff had relevant guidance to help them understand whether a person was consenting to care and treatment or not. An example of a person’s non-verbal communication included “I may smile to signal my approval or say yes”. When we spoke with members of staff they demonstrated a good understanding about gaining people’s consent before providing care and support. They gave examples of how they ensured people were consenting to care and support which included understanding people’s verbal and non-verbal methods of communication and allowing people to time to make their decisions about whether to accept care and support.

Where people did not have the capacity to consent, the provider acted in accordance with legal requirements. We saw that there was detail in people’s care plans about the type of decisions they had capacity to make. The home’s policies and procedures gave clear guidance about the Mental Capacity Act 2005. This included what actions should be taken if staff at the home thought someone did not have the capacity to consent to care or treatment. The manager explained that a mental capacity assessment would be requested from relevant professionals in the situation that they needed to know whether a person could make a specific decision, such as consent to a specific treatment.