You are here

All reports

Inspection report

Date of Inspection: 10 November 2011
Date of Publication: 14 December 2011
Inspection Report published 14 December 2011 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

People are safeguarded from abuse because staff have received training and have a good understanding of the different ways in which people can come to harm.

Appropriate procedures are being followed to ensure that people are only deprived of their liberty when this is in their best interests.

Overall, we found that Brendoncare Froxfield was meeting this essential standard.

User experience

People told us they felt safe in the home and could talk to one of the staff if they had any concerns. Information was displayed in the home about the different agencies that people could contact for advice and if they had any concerns or complaints. A range of booklets and leaflets were on show in the front hall. These included copies of ‘Keeping people safe in Wiltshire’, which tells people how any concerns about abuse can be reported and are followed up.

One of the senior staff told us that any concerns about abuse would be referred to the local authority for investigation, in accordance with the local procedures for safeguarding adults. We spoke to four other staff members and each said that they felt confident about being able to recognise abuse and report any concerns.

Staff members told us they had received a copy of the 'No Secrets' booklet, which summarises the local authority's procedures for safeguarding vulnerable adults. They had attended training about preventing abuse and received an annual update. The staff we spoke with were able to describe the different forms that abuse can take, such as financial and psychological. One staff member mentioned the use of inappropriate equipment with people as being a form of abuse. Another said that abusive practice included failing to ensure that sufficient drinks were available to a person who was at risk of poor fluid intake.

One staff member said that whistleblowing was encouraged and other staff confirmed that they were aware of the home’s policy on whistleblowing.

Other evidence

The home accommodated people who lacked the capacity to make informed decisions and to give their consent to certain actions. The home has applied to the appropriate authority during the last year to restrict an individual's liberty in the home, in order to prevent them from coming to harm. This shows an understanding of the Mental Capacity Act, which allows for a person who lacks capacity to be deprived of his or her liberty in a proportionate way, if this is assessed to be in their best interests.