You are here

Archived: Dovecott Care Home

All reports

Inspection report

Date of Inspection: 18, 19 April 2013
Date of Publication: 30 May 2013
Inspection Report published 30 May 2013 PDF

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

Meeting 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 18 April 2013 and 19 April 2013, observed how people were being cared for and talked with staff. We reviewed information sent to us by commissioners of services.

Our judgement

People who use the service were protected from the risk of abuse, because the provider had taken reasonable steps to identify the possibility of abuse and prevent abuse from happening.

Reasons for our judgement

When we inspected this service in October 2012 we found that the provider was not meeting this standard. This was because the provider had not reported incidents of alleged abuse and they had not protected people from unlawful or excessive restraint. The provider sent us an action plan which set out how they were going to improve.

The provider responded appropriately to any allegation of abuse. At this inspection we found there had been some improvement in reporting incidents and the provider responded appropriately to any allegation of abuse. There had been two low level incidents since the last inspection. There was evidence in the records that these had been reported to the local safeguarding team. One of these incidents had been reported to the Care Quality Commission but we had not, at the time of writing the report, received a notification of an incident which had occurred on the 7 February 2013. The manager told us that this notification had been sent by post but she had no evidence to support this.

We found one person's care plan indicated restraint was required by care workers when assisting with personal care. We found that a care plan had been developed to support the level of care required and a log of the assistance required was maintained. The person had also been reviewed by the commissioners of the service on two separate occasions since the last inspection and they were satisfied with the support provided. We could see from the records that the level of restraint required had reduced since the last inspection.

There was evidence from training records that some care workers had had the opportunity to undertake training in safeguarding vulnerable adults in 2010. Care workers we spoke with were knowledgeable about the procedures and how to recognise abuse. However there was no evidence refresher training was planned.