You are here

Archived: St Marks House

All reports

Inspection report

Date of Inspection: 12 April 2012
Date of Publication: 28 May 2012
Inspection Report published 28 May 2012 PDF | 55.41 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 12/04/2012, 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 regulation. 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

There was a relaxed and comfortable atmosphere in the home. People engaged in a relaxed manner with both staff and each other.

There have been no safeguarding referrals made about the home in the last twelve months.

Staff told us and training records showed that staff had received training in safeguarding vulnerable adults. We asked staff about systems in place to prevent potential abuse. Staff spoken with knew what to do if they observed or suspected any behaviour that could amount to abuse or poor practice. Whilst confident that such allegations would be taken seriously by management, staff were able to describe which external bodies they would refer the matter to if it became necessary. Staff knew who to contact to report any allegations of abuse.

We asked about the use of restraint. Staff told us that restraint was never necessary. One member of staff told us that she had never seen any aggression between people who lived at the home.

There have not been any referrals made to restrict people under the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) in the last twelve months. We saw that where the service previously had concerns about a potential restriction of liberty, a DoLS application had been appropriately made to the council. Whilst the application was refused, the assessor found that the person had not been deprived of their liberty. The service were aware of their obligations to apply for authorisation if there could be a deprivation of liberty that could amount to a breach of the human rights of a person.

Staff told us that they had received training in the Mental Capacity Act as part of their NVQ qualifications. One member of staff was able to describe what DoLS meant.

People living in the home needed support to manage their finances. The home was able to hold amounts of personal money and bank books for people who lived there. We saw that money was held securely and each person’s money was clearly identifiable. We saw that there were detailed individual records of income and expenditure, together with receipts for purchases. We saw that records were clear, auditable and accurate. We saw that in some cases monies were beginning to accrue. The registered manager told us that the service was currently reviewing the amount of money held by them for individual service users.

The provider may find it useful to note that whilst some people had signed to confirm receipt of amounts of cash, others had not. A member of staff had signed to confirm each transaction. There was an inconsistent approach to record amounts of cash provided to individuals.

Other evidence

We have no other evidence.