You are here

Archived: The Whitehouse

The provider of this service changed - see new profile

All reports

Inspection report

Date of Inspection: 16 March 2012
Date of Publication: 20 April 2012
Inspection Report published 20 April 2012 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

Our judgement

People who use services generally were being kept safe from the risk of abuse but they could not be fully confident that they were being reliably helped to manage their money,

Overall, we found that The Whitehouse was meeting this essential standard, but to maintain this, we have suggested that some improvements are made.

User experience

People who use services said they felt free to raise concerns and that they felt safe.

They said, 'I like the staff a lot because they're so very nice to people and kind. I know that they'll always help me because that's how they are. I don't have anything to complain about here but if there was the staff would put it right for us' and 'I'm happy enough with things here. I could say if there was something and I'm sure that staff would listen and sort out whatever for me'.

Other evidence

There was a complaints procedure that explained how people could raise concerns. There was a procedure to help ensure that complaints were investigated and promptly resolved. The provider was not dealing with any complaints at the time of our visit.

There was a policy and procedure that described the action staff should take in order to keep people safe from abuse. Staff had received relevant training and they knew what to do to keep people safe. This included being able to recognise abuse if it occurred and how to 'whistle-blow' if they had concerns.

There were arrangements to support people who needed special help when making certain important decisions such as receiving some kinds of medical attention. Also, there were safeguards if someone needed to have part of their freedom limited so that any restrictions used were the least necessary and were reviewed regularly.

Security checks including references and a police check had been completed for staff. These had been done to help make sure that they were trustworthy to work with people who were vulnerable.

People were being helped to manage their money so they had enough to buy things. Some of the money spent on behalf of people were not supported by receipts. This meant that sometimes people could not check that they were being assisted in a reliable way to manage their money.