You are here

All reports

Inspection report

Date of Inspection: 7 January 2013
Date of Publication: 9 February 2013
Inspection Report published 9 February 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 7 January 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 and talked with staff.

We used the Short Observational Framework for Inspection (SOFI). SOFI is a specific way of observing care to help us understand the experience of people who could not talk with us.

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

One person told us that they felt “quite happy and safe here.”

The home had policies on whistle blowing and the protection of adults together with guidance on protecting people from harm. The guidance defined the types of abuse, actions to be taken, referred to local authority's policy and included contact details for the local authority. When we spoke with staff they knew where to find the policies.

Staff understood their responsibilities regarding safeguarding and whistle blowing, but five out of 36 members of staff needed safeguarding training. However, three of the five had been employed within the organisation for less than four weeks. The provider had dates booked for these people to attend safeguarding training.

Staff knew what actions they would take if they had any concerns about abuse or malpractice. Staff told us about the types of abuse and how to report allegations of abuse.

The home had policies on the Mental Capacity Act and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards. Staff were able to describe the Mental Capacity Act but not all staff understood Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards. There were no people subject to Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards authorisations living in the home. Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards authorisations allow for an authorisation to be put in place which provides a representative to act on behalf of the person subject to the safeguards in order to protect their interests. The home had made safeguarding alerts to the local authority and the Care Quality Commissions as required. The provider may find it useful to note that all staff must understand Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards.

We reviewed the home’s training matrix and 18 out of 36 members of staff had completed Mental Capacity Act training which incorporated Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards. The provider demonstrated that this training was booked for staff to attend.