You are here

All reports

Inspection report

Date of Inspection: 28 November 2011
Date of Publication: 17 January 2012
Inspection Report published 17 January 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

People’s safety is supported by staff that knows how to recognise abuse and was experienced in recognising any concerns. However the lack of training and policies and procedures as identified puts people who use the service potentially at risk.

Overall, we found that Harbour Care Home was meeting this essential standard but, to maintain this, we have suggested that some improvements are made.

User experience

People told us that they felt safe in the home. They said they could talk to the staff or manager if they had any concerns. One person said he felt safe and supported to raise any problems or concerns.

Observations during the visit showed there was a relaxed atmosphere in the home and people chatted freely and openly with each other, the staff and management.

Other evidence

Staff spoken with showed knowledge of safeguarding people from abuse and how and where to report any suspicions or concerns.

All staff had a Police check (the purpose of the check is to show that someone has not done anything in the past that might make them not suitable to work with vulnerable people). The service did not however have a policy, procedure or risk assessments in place should a member of staff have had any information contained within such checks which might be of concern.

Staff had received safeguarding training on how to keep people safe. This gave them the knowledge and the skills to do their jobs well and protect people from abuse. However training had not been delivered in relation to the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguarding (safeguards to protect loss of freedom and rights).

The service additionally did not have a copy of the local safeguarding protocols (procedures to follow to protect vulnerable people from abuse) issued by Kent and Medway Councils available for staff.

No notifications received by the Care Quality Commission had raised any concerns since registration and the home had no open safeguarding alerts.