You are here

All reports

Inspection report

Date of Inspection: 24 July 2012
Date of Publication: 15 August 2012
Inspection Report published 15 August 2012 PDF | 52.12 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 reviewed all the information we hold about this provider, carried out a visit on 24/07/2012, observed how people were being cared for, looked at records of people who use services, talked to staff and talked to people who use services.

Our judgement

The provider was meeting this standard.

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.

User experience

We did not speak directly to people about this outcome. We gathered evidence of people’s experiences of the service by reviewing their care plans. During our visit we observed the care people received.

Other evidence

Staff we spoke with were able to describe different types of abuse and how people might respond if they were being abused. They knew how to report abuse internally to their manager. They were also aware they could go direct to the safeguarding team at the local council.

The provider had demonstrated they responded appropriately when they have identified where people may be at risk of abuse. They have worked collaboratively with the local safeguarding authority to protect people.

The Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) were only used when it was considered to be in the persons best interests. The DoLS aim to protect people’s human rights in circumstances where they cannot consent to their care or treatment. Records showed when a DoLS had been requested there had been a best interest meeting to determining the correct course of action. The person for whom the DoLS had been requested had an independent advocate to represent their views in the meeting.