You are here

Archived: Laureston House Residential Home

All reports

Inspection report

Date of Inspection: 15 October 2013
Date of Publication: 9 November 2013
Inspection Report published 09 November 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 15 October 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, talked with staff and reviewed information given to us by the provider.

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

The provider responded appropriately to any allegation of abuse. Staff spoken with showed knowledge of safeguarding people from abuse and how and where to report any concerns. All stated that they were aware of the correct actions to follow and knew where the policies and procedures were and who to talk too.

Observations during the visit showed there was a relaxed atmosphere in the home and people chatted freely and openly with each other, the staff and management.

Staff had received training on how to keep people safe. This gave them the knowledge and the skills to do their jobs well and protect people from abuse. Training had also been delivered in relation to the Mental Capacity Act 2005. The manager advised that staff had completed adult safeguarding. We were given a copy of their training matrix which confirmed that this was the case. Staff members we spoke with confirmed that they had received training. None of the people living within the service were detained under the Mental Health Act 1983.

We discussed the provider’s policy on safeguarding with the manager and looked at the policy currently in use. Members of staff we spoke with had an understanding of the local authority role in safeguarding, and knew how to contact them if they needed to, and told us they had seen a copy of the local authority guidelines. We also examined a copy of the provider’s whistle blowing policy and were told by the manager of procedures in place for staff to report any concerns directly to a manager. The staff we spoke with all knew about whistle blowing, and how they would make any concerns known. However the provider may find it useful to note that the services safeguarding policy was in need of review.