You are here

Headingley Hall Care Home Outstanding

All reports

Inspection report

Date of Inspection: 14 August 2012
Date of Publication: 2 November 2012
Inspection Report - DN published 2 November 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

The provider was meeting this standard.

People who used 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

People we spoke with told us they felt safe living at Headingley Hall. They also told us that they had been provided with information on who to contact if they had any concerns or wanted to make a complaint.

Other evidence

Are steps taken to prevent abuse?

The home had a policy in place for safeguarding people from abuse. This policy provided guidance for staff on how to detect different types of abuse and how to report abuse. There was also a whistle blowing policy in place for staff to report matters of concern.

The provider carried out checks on all staff to ensure that they were suitable to work with any vulnerable adults. The manager told us all staff working in the home had a Criminal Records Bureau check.

The six staff we spoke with told us they understand the importance of the safeguarding process through the safeguarding training they received.

Do people know how to raise concerns?

All six staff spoken with told us they would report any safeguarding concerns to the manager. They also told us they were aware of the homes policies and how to contact external agencies who could assist if they felt that management were not taking their concerns seriously.

Are Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards used appropriately?

In discussions with the manager we asked how they made sure where people were not deprived of their liberty, this was done appropriately. The manager told us that staff had attended Mental Capacity Act (MCA) and deprivation of liberty safeguard (DoLS) training. They were confident staff would recognise when people had limited capacity and when they needed to discuss decisions about the action to take in the best interests of people.

Staff understood their obligations with respect to people’s rights and choices when they appeared to lack the capacity to make informed and appropriate decisions.