Archived: Ravenhill Way

On this page

• Overview
• Assessing needs
• Delivering evidence-based care and treatment
• How staff, teams and services work together
• Supporting people to live healthier lives
• Monitoring and improving outcomes
• Consent to care and treatment

We identified 1 breach of the legal regulations in relation to consent to care and treatment. Where people lacked mental capacity to make decisions, the provider failed to ensure relevant mental capacity assessments were completed to ensure people’s existing wishes had been considered. Staff ensured people agreed to the support and care being offered to them.

This service scored 62 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

We did not look at Assessing needs during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Effective.

We did not look at Delivering evidence-based care and treatment during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Effective.

We did not look at How staff, teams and services work together during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Effective.

We did not look at Supporting people to live healthier lives during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Effective.

We did not look at Monitoring and improving outcomes during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Effective.

When asked about choices and consent, a relative told us their loved one was given choice. However, due to the lack of mental capacity assessments, we could not be sure that choice and consent was in line with the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA).

Senior staff did not understand their responsibilities regarding the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). The registered manager confirmed MCAs are completed as part of the referral process by the local authority or other professionals in relation to care and accommodation. However, it is the responsibility of the care home provider to complete all relevant assessments, and only one assessment had been completed. This meant people were at risk of having choices and decisions made without their knowledge or input. The registered manager advised they had applied to extend a Deprivation of liberty safeguard (DoLS) authorisation. Staff told us they would respect a person’s right to refuse care and treatment and would seek advice if this happened. Staff told us they gained consent and ensured they offered people choices about their care, giving them the right information and providing encouragement. Staff knowledge in relation to day-to-day decision, choice and control was good.

The provider failed to meet the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005. Care plans did not include clear information about people’s mental capacity. Where people were unable to make their own decisions, the service failed to complete MCA assessments and decisions made on people’s behalf had not been done in line with the principles of best interests. For example, 1 person had been denied access to their finances, there was no MCA assessment or best interest meeting to determine if this was appropriate and, in the person’s, best interests. This meant people were at risk of being unlawfully deprived of their liberty. Following our first site visit, a copy of one MCA assessment was provided which was almost a year old. However, this was not in the care records at the time of our visit. The record of best interest decision relating to this MCA could not be provided. We raised this during the assessment with the service who assured they would ensure capacity assessments are completed moving forward. Staff had not always received up to date MCA and DoLS training.