You are here

Howard Goble House Requires improvement

All reports

Inspection report

Date of Inspection: 20 March 2012
Date of Publication: 8 May 2012
Inspection Report published 8 May 2012 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

Overall we found that Howard Goble House was meeting this essential standard. Action was taken to identify and prevent abuse from happening in the service.

User experience

One of the people we spoke with told us they had been kicked by another person using the service. We discussed this with staff who demonstrated that they had responded appropriately to the incident.

We observed staff taking action to protect people from other people’s challenging behaviour.

In response to the annual feedback questionnaire in 2011, relatives, family friends and an advocate said they were satisfied with the service provided at Howard Goble House. Their comments indicated that people using the service were happy, settled, comfortable and content. One relative wrote; “The staff are very caring and we don’t have to worry about [the person’s] welfare.”

Other evidence

Staff had received safeguarding training. They were able to recognise signs of different forms of abuse and to raise any suspected abuse with their managers.

Howard Goble House had a safeguarding policy. Detailed records were kept of any incidents of actual or suspected harm and concerns were reported to the local authority. None had been progressed to a local authority safeguarding investigation in the last 12 months.

The home had a whistleblowing policy. Staff were aware of their professional duty to report any concerns they had about people being put at risk.

Staff were subject to a police check via the Criminal Records Bureau (CRB) on commencing their employment and every three years thereafter.

Some of the people using the service sometimes behaved in a challenging way. Staff had worked with the provider’s behaviour support team to identify triggers and develop guidelines for responding to, and reducing this behaviour. Physical restraint was not used.

The provider acted as appointee for people using the service who were unable to manage their own financial affairs. Staff helped people manage cash for day to day expenses. Procedures were in place for the management of this cash to ensure that people’s money was accounted for properly.

Staff were not allowed to accept gifts from people using the service, nor were they allowed to be involved in drawing up a person’s will, nor be an executor or a beneficiary of a person’s will.