You are here

Folkestone Nursing Home Good

All reports

Inspection report

Date of Inspection: 5 September 2013
Date of Publication: 9 October 2013
Inspection Report published 09 October 2013 PDF

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 looked at the personal care or treatment records of people who use the service, carried out a visit on 5 September 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, talked with carers and / or family members and talked with staff.

Our judgement

People who use the service were not always protected from the risk of abuse, because the provider had not taken all reasonable steps to identify the possibility of abuse and prevent abuse from happening.

Reasons for our judgement

People who used the service were not protected from the risk of abuse, because the provider had not taken all reasonable steps to identify the possibility of abuse and prevent abuse from happening. Training records demonstrated that less than half of the permanent staff had received safeguarding adults training in the last three years. We were told that this training was in the process of being organised via the local authority.

The service had written policies covering adult protection and whistleblowing. We spoke to staff about adult protection and all were clear about the action they would take should they suspect or be witness to abuse. However, not all staff were aware of the whistleblowing policy.

The staff training matrix demonstrated that nine staff had undertaken training in the Mental Capacity Act 2005 in June 2013 and we were told that others were due to attend a further course in the near future.

Concerns had been raised by a visitor to the home that the provider had not acted in accordance with the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). The acting manager had a clear understanding of their role in relation to DoLS and was able to give examples of applications they had made and the process they had followed. We saw appropriate applications had been made to the local authority by the acting manager and the reasons for the applications were clearly recorded.

We were concerned that there was no specific DoLS training offered to staff. However the acting manager was able to demonstrate that training was being arranged for all staff in the near future.

We spoke to care staff about DoLS and although they were aware that people should not have unnecessary restrictions imposed on them they were not aware of the restrictions that had been imposed for two people they worked with directly.