You are here

Eastfield Farm Residential Home Limited Good

All reports

Inspection report

Date of Inspection: 28 June 2011
Date of Publication: 8 July 2011
Inspection Report published 8 July 2011 PDF | 80.92 KB

People should be protected from abuse and staff should respect their human rights (outcome 7)

Not met this standard

We checked that people who use this service

  • Are protected from abuse, or the risk of abuse, and their human rights are respected and upheld.

How this check was done

We reviewed all the information we hold about this provider, carried out a visit on 28/06/2011 and observed how people were being cared for.

Our judgement

People were not fully protected from abuse or the risk of abuse and there had been incidents when their human rights had not been respected or upheld.

User experience

We did not speak directly to people living at the home about this outcome.

Other evidence

The provider submitted a PCA in December 2010. It recorded that regular staff meetings allowed for discussion on the preventation and management of behaviours so that learning was shared and the risk of further incidents was reduced, and that staff had received safeguarding training. The PCA also recorded that staff were aware of the homes policy on whistleblowing and that information about safeguarding adults from abuse was displayed on the home’s notice boards. On the day of our site visit we saw that information was displayed in the home about the principles of safeguarding adults from abuse, both in the office and in the reception area.

Although the staff we spoke to had a reasonable understanding of the principles of safeguarding adults from abuse, there had been a number of recent allegations about staff being disrespectful when dealing with residents or not assisting residents in a sensitive manner. In some instances, incidents or allegations had been reported to the local authority safeguarding adult’s team and the CQC by the home, but on some occasions the safeguarding team had become aware of the allegations via different routes. This could indicate that there was a lack of clarity about the type of incidents that must be reported to the safeguarding adult’s team and CQC.

Some staff, but not all, had undertaken training on safeguarding adults from abuse. The manager told us that training would be arranged for the staff who had not yet attended training as soon as it became available via the local authority. The manager acknowledged that, although he had had training on this topic in the past, he was in need of the specific refresher training that was available for managers of care services.

We did not look at the monies held on behalf of people living at the home and associated records. However, we did discuss one specific concern with the manager. See outcome 2. We did see that the money taken from this person’s personal allowance each week had been accounted for appropriately.