You are here

Archived: Good Neighbours House

All reports

Inspection report

Date of Inspection: 3 December 2012
Date of Publication: 13 February 2013
Inspection Report published 13 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 3 December 2012, 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, talked with staff and talked with stakeholders.

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 knew about the organisation's safeguarding procedure. The provider, Scope had produced an easy read guide to safeguarding issues which advised people of the action to take in the event of a concern about their own or another person's safety. This had been discussed at meetings for people who live at the service and a DVD about safeguarding had been shown. We were told that this was available for people to see at any time. The issue of safeguarding was a regular item on the agenda of each meeting for people who live at the service.

Staff received training in safeguarding issues as part of their induction to the service and on an on-going basis. Staff we spoke with were aware of the vulnerability of people who live at the service and expressed their commitment to safeguarding their interests. They were aware of the action to take in the event of a concern. Safeguarding was discussed at all of the staff meetings. Staff had received training in the deprivation of liberty safeguards and the Mental Capacity Act 2005. We noted that all of the care plans we saw had a statement about the capacity of the person.

The manager was aware of the London multi-agency policy and procedures to safeguard adults from abuse and knew how to access them through the internet. The provider might like to note that it would be useful for all staff to have access to this document.

Any incidents or concerns raised at the home had been responded to appropriately. This had included passing on information and cooperating with relevant authorities. Our records showed that there were no concerns about the welfare of people living in the home.