You are here

Options Roxby House Outstanding

All reports

Inspection report

Date of Inspection: 19 October 2012
Date of Publication: 15 November 2012
Inspection Report published 15 November 2012 PDF | 82.54 KB

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, reviewed information sent to us by other organisations, carried out a visit on 19 October 2012 and checked how people were cared for at each stage of their treatment and care. We talked with people who use the service, talked with carers and / or family members, talked with staff and talked with stakeholders.

Our judgement

People who used 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 used 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 provider responded appropriately to any allegation of abuse and people were protected against the risk of unlawful or excessive control or restraint because the provider had made suitable arrangements.

Prior to our visit we looked at documentation about incidents that the provider was required to submit to the Care Quality Commission (CQC). We saw that there were high numbers of incidents occurring between the people that lived in the home, compared to other similar services.

During the visit we spoke with the manager who told us that the North Lincolnshire local safeguarding team required all incidents even very minor altercations between people who used the service be reported. The manager said, “It is very rare we have a serious assault and usually the incidents are minor with no lasting effect or injury caused.”

We looked at the incidents and saw how they were recorded, reported and analysed. Each person had individual risk management plans in place and we saw that these were clear with regard to the level and likelihood of the risk occurring. We also saw that following incidents a de-brief took place with the person who used the service and any staff members involved. There was a multi-disciplinary team on site that included a psychologist and a speech and language therapist. The consultant psychiatrist visited on a regular basis. There was evidence in place that confirmed incidents were discussed and action taken to address the risk of the behaviour re-occurring.

We spoke with the local safeguarding team who confirmed that all incidents must be reported. They told us that the provider reported incidents and had taken appropriate action in managing or reducing the risk of incidents occurring again.

During our visit we spoke with the manager, a visiting relative and two life skills instructors and we checked documentation such as incident records and care files. These demonstrated that incidents putting people at risk of abuse had been reported or discussed with the local safeguarding team and the Care Quality Commission (CQC).

We saw records confirming that the 96% of staff had undertaken Safeguarding of Vulnerable Adults (SOVA) training. We also saw that 96% of staff had completed training in The Mental Capacity Act (2005).

We saw evidence in the case files belonging to people who used the service that their rights had been protected. The manager told us that, “We assess people using the mental capacity assessment and if deemed the person does not have capacity to make a certain decision, a best interest meeting would be held.”

The manager told us that all staff had received training on physical intervention when they started work at the service and that this training was updated yearly. The form of physical intervention used is British Institute of Learning Disabilities (BILD) accredited, which is part of current guidance and good practice. One staff member told us, "We have a first response team, but this is not used often.” They went on to say, “ We try and diffuse the situation and use talk down techniques first. Physical intervention would only be used as a last resort.”

This meant that staff had undertaken training that ensured they were skilled and understood their role in protecting vulnerable adults from harm or the risk of abuse.