You are here

Howard Goble House Requires improvement

All reports

Inspection report

Date of Inspection: 5 February 2013
Date of Publication: 27 February 2013
Inspection Report published 27 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 5 February 2013, observed how people were being cared for 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. The home manager confirmed that by April 2013 all staff would have completed an annual refresher course in safeguarding and all staff had undertaken their initial safeguarding training. Bank staff working for the provider were also required to undertake safeguarding training.

We spoke with five staff working at the home on the day of our inspection. Staff all understood what constituted abuse and how they would report concerns to managers. A small number of staff were unsure of exactly how to raise concerns outside of the provider, such as reporting to social services or the Care Quality Commission, but all staff said they would pursue any concerns and would find out how to escalate these if necessary. This was discussed with the home's manager who said they would feedback to the provider's training department to ensure external escalation of concerns was covered on the training. There was a safeguarding information sheet provided by Bexley local authority which contained contact details for reporting concerns externally, available in the staff office on the day of our inspection.

The provider responded appropriately to any allegation of abuse. The provider had correctly notified the care Quality Commission of two safeguarding concerns and had taken appropriate action to inform other authorities and investigate the concerns internally. An advocate had been provided for one person using the service involved in a safeguarding concern.

The home manager confirmed that all staff had criminal records checks done before they commenced work at the home. We saw that part of the responsibilities of the Lead Person on a shift was to ensure the criminal records checks were available for agency staff sent to work at the home, before the agency staff began work. This meant that only suitable people were employed by the home.