You are here

All reports

Inspection report

Date of Inspection: 14 December 2012
Date of Publication: 19 January 2013
Inspection Report published 19 January 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 carried out a visit on 14 December 2012, observed how people were being cared for, checked how people were cared for at each stage of their treatment and care and talked with people who use the service. We talked with staff.

We used the Short Observational Framework for Inspection (SOFI). SOFI is a specific way of observing care to help us understand the experience of people who could not talk with us.

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 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.

We saw that the provider had systems in place to support people with raising concerns. Staff were able to describe particular behaviours that indicated a concern with people who would not be able to tell them they were unhappy.

One person said, "I would talk with the manager or staff if I was worried. I have never seen anything that worried me. It’s not like that here."

We spoke with staff about the arrangements for reporting allegations or incidents of abuse. The staff members were clear on their responsibilities and demonstrated a good understanding of how to report concerns. Staff confirmed that they had attended training in safeguarding people and the Mental Capacity Act and demonstrated an understanding of their responsibilities under this legislation.

The provider may find it useful to note that we saw a concern had been raised by a relative of one person. This related to the conduct of a member of staff. We were told by the manager that the concern had been dealt with internally but the manager had not reported the allegation to the local authority and not followed the pan Sussex safeguarding policy. The manager told us they would report the matter and seek advice from the team. Following our inspection the manager confirmed that this concern had been reported to the local authority and an investigation found no evidence of abuse.

The manager told us that no one in the home was subject to Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DOLS) but knew what action to take should concerns be raised about any person's capacity to make decisions. The provider may wish to note that a long standing protocol for one person in relation to medicines had not been reviewed in light of the introduction of the Mental Capacity Act. Whilst we saw evidence of consultation with family members, the person's GP and an assessment of capacity contained within the person's record, the arrangements had not been reviewed with the DOLS team.