You are here

Archived: Swallowfields Care Centre

The provider of this service changed - see new profile

All reports

Inspection report

Date of Inspection: 3 September 2013
Date of Publication: 8 October 2013
Inspection Report published 08 October 2013 PDF | 87.83 KB

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 3 September 2013, observed how people were being cared for and talked with people who use the service. We talked with carers and / or family members and talked with staff.

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

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.

We spoke to staff and asked them what they understood about safeguarding vulnerable adults. They told us they had received training and were able to give us examples of what would constitute abuse. When we asked who they would speak to if they had a safeguarding concern they said that they would speak to the manager in the first instance.

We saw that the provider held in-house safeguarding policies on safeguarding vulnerable adults. We also saw a copy of the Surrey County Council (SCC) safeguarding guidance. We saw that staff had signed to say that they had had read the guidance. This meant that staff would be able to follow locally and nationally agreed procedures in the event of an allegation or suspicion of abuse.

We observed that each person who used the service had a petty cash log in which staff recorded expenditure. We saw that this was checked regularly and often signed by two members of staff. This meant that people who used the service were at a reduced risk of financial abuse.

We asked what checks had been made on staff suitability to work with vulnerable people, including children. We were told that the provider had carried out a risk assessment on staff and had ensured that those who required it had undergone an enhanced criminal records bureau check.