You are here

All reports

Inspection report

Date of Inspection: 20 May 2014
Date of Publication: 24 June 2014
Inspection Report published 24 June 2014 PDF

People should be safe from harm from unsafe or unsuitable equipment (outcome 11)

Meeting this standard

We checked that people who use this service

  • Are not at risk of harm from unsafe or unsuitable equipment (medical and non-medical equipment, furnishings or fittings).
  • Benefit from equipment that is comfortable and meets their needs.

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 20 May 2014, observed how people were being cared for and talked with people who use the service. We talked with carers and / or family members, talked with staff, reviewed information given to us by the provider and reviewed information sent to us by other authorities.

Our judgement

People were protected from unsafe or unsuitable equipment.

Reasons for our judgement

People were protected from unsafe or unsuitable equipment because the provider had made suitable arrangements to protect service users and others by ensuring that equipment was properly maintained and suitable for its purpose.

Staff told us that equipment was readily available and was kept in good working order by the proprietor and external contractors where necessary. There was an established maintenance programme for all electrical installations and fixed equipment. Checks were in place for equipment used to aid diagnosis such as blood glucose monitoring equipment and weighing scales. Electronic records we looked at on the care management system confirmed that these were carried out.

An assisted bathroom and bath hoist were decommissioned and the bathroom was labelled: “Staff Use Only”. However the provider may wish to note that the door was not kept locked meaning that access to the bathroom was not suitably restricted.

The manager told us that they received and acted upon safety alerts and bulletins from outside agencies notifying them of unsafe equipment, and provided us with recent examples. Staff we spoke with told us that this information would be passed on to them verbally as necessary.

People were supplied with a profiling bed and pressure relieving mattresses to meet their specific needs following a risk assessment. We saw that equipment was also provided to assist with moving and handling, and that it was stored securely and kept in good working order. We observed that people's independence was promoted by their use of mobility aids that had been provided for them following individual assessment. Staff told us that they had been shown how to use all equipment provided. The provider may wish to note that we were not able to see any records stating how staff had been trained to use specific equipment and therefore we could not fully assess the impact.

One person acting on another person’s behalf told us that they had previously informed the manager that footrests were not used on a wheelchair when moving a person around the home and that this had since been resolved. During our visit we saw a wheelchair in the communal lounge with no footrests and brought this to the manager’s attention.

We observed that people looked comfortable in the chairs provided in their rooms as well as in the communal areas. The dining room was spacious and allowed each person to sit at the table during mealtimes, should they wish to. Every person had their own television and own furniture in their room as desired. One person acting on a person’s behalf said “They like their room, I cannot fault it”.

This meant that there were suitable arrangements in place to protect service users and others who may be at risk of unsafe equipment, and that there was available equipment to promote the independence and comfort of people using the service.