You are here

Friarn House Residential Home Good

All reports

Inspection report

Date of Inspection: 11 December 2012
Date of Publication: 3 January 2013
Inspection Report published 3 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 looked at the personal care or treatment records of people who use the service, carried out a visit on 11 December 2012, observed how people were being cared for and talked with people who use the service. We talked with staff.

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

There was a calm and relaxed atmosphere in the home. People appeared very comfortable with the staff who supported them. We observed that staff interacted with people in a friendly and respectful manner.

Everyone we asked said that they felt safe at the home. One person told us “It’s very safe here, there’s nothing to upset anyone.”

The home had policies on safeguarding vulnerable adults and whistle blowing (where staff could raise any concerns they had in a confidential way). These policies outlined how to recognise and report any suspicions of abuse. We read the minutes of the last staff meeting and noted that whistle blowing had been discussed and all staff had been given a copy of the home’s policy. This ensured that staff had clear information to assist them to recognise and report any instances of abuse.

We noticed that there were posters in the home encouraging people to report any suspicions of abuse. The posters gave telephone numbers which ensured that people who lived at the home, staff or visitors had easy access to a confidential telephone line and could report concerns anonymously if they wished to.

All staff that we spoke with said they had received training on safeguarding vulnerable adults and the training matrix confirmed this. Staff spoken with were clear about how to report any concerns. All were confident that any allegations would be fully investigated and action would be taken to make sure that people were protected.

We also saw that staff had received training about the mental capacity act. This ensured that if anyone who lived at the home was unable to make a decision for them self, the staff would be aware of how to make decisions in the person’s best interests. Care plans seen contained individual assessments of capacity and stated the people who should be involved in the decision making process if someone did not have the capacity to make a decision.

We looked at the recruitment files of the two newest members of staff. These demonstrated a robust recruitment procedure which included carrying out Criminal Records Bureau (CRB) checks and obtaining written references before the person began work. This minimised the risks of abuse to people who lived at the home.