You are here

Archived: Montrose Good

The provider of this service changed - see new profile

All reports

Inspection report

Date of Inspection: 2 February 2012
Date of Publication: 23 May 2012
Inspection Report published 23 May 2012 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

Our judgement

People are protected against the risk of harm or neglect at Montrose Care Home and safeguarding concerns are responded to appropriately. The safeguarding policy does not reflect local and national guidance. Not all staff had an understanding of safeguarding adults inspite of having received training .

Overall Montrose Care Home was not meeting this essential standard.

User experience

One person told us that they always felt safe at Montrose. Four people we spoke with knew who to speak with if they had a concern.

Other evidence

We received four safeguarding notifications from the local authority in the last 12 months which were investigated and subsequently managed appropriately by the home. Three of the allegations were unsubstantiated. One safeguarding allegation was substantiated and as a result of an investigation a member of staff was dismissed and referred to the Independent Safeguarding Authority (ISA).

The registered manager told us that no Deprivation of Liberty Safeguarding (DoLS) were in place or applied for in the last 12 months.

We spoke with two members of staff who told us they had received safeguarding adult training. However, they did not understand and recognise the signs of abuse, the Mental Capacity Act or DoLS. Another member of staff we spoke with was able to discuss adult safeguarding confidently, including the signs of abuse and how to respond and raise concerns appropriately.

The registered manager showed us the staff mandatory training matrix. The training matrix demonstrated that all staff were required to have safeguarding adult training each year. All but two staff were up to date with safeguarding adult training.

The safeguarding policy we saw did not cross reference or include the local authority safeguarding guidance. Neither did the policy include the Mental Capacity Act or DoLS. A separate policy for whistle blowing was in place.