You are here

All reports

Inspection report

Date of Inspection: 27 April 2011
Date of Publication: 28 June 2011
Inspection Report published 28 June 2011 PDF

Contents menu

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 had experienced a period of time when the provider had been managing the home and people had not been well enough protected from abuse or the risk of abuse because the two staff designated as managers had not been able to influence the care given to them. Also not all staff had been trained or had updated training in safeguarding adult’s awareness, but they had all been sufficiently competent to handle safeguarding issues and concerns. People had their human rights appropriately respected and upheld. Since having had a safeguarding investigation the management team had learned lessons and identified training needs and had made improvements in handling safeguarding.

User experience

People we spoke to said they had felt safe and secure in the home. They said they had been well cared for and well looked after.

They said their finances had been looked after by either family members or by a system of safe keeping in the home. One person said they had not had money on their person or even in their rooms for some time, but that they knew who to ask if they needed any. Another person said they had been happy with the arrangement that their daughter handled her finances.

People said they had not had any need to report any incident, but would talk to one of the staff if they did.

Other evidence

In April the provider submitted a PCA document to the CQC which described how the home was compliant with the outcome and all of the elements that formed the outcome. The PCA was in the provider's own format and it stated that the home had not been completely compliant with the outcome as there had been minor concerns identified with outdated safeguarding training and staff needing to be given a guidance leaflet.

We discussed safeguarding with the management and with staff and we viewed the training records which showed that of the thirteen care staff employed only four had completed safeguarding training in September and December 2009. One staff having worked in the home for 20 months confirmed her safeguarding training had been more than 18 months ago although the record did not show her as having completed any such training at this home, so it is understood she completed it in her previous job. Evidence showed that the number of staff having completed safeguarding training was very low and there was no evidence to show they had been competence assessed. See outcome 14 Supporting workers.

Staff in discussion had been unable to demonstrate good understanding and responsibilities of safeguarding adults, other than they said they would have passed on information to their management team, but they were aware of the whistle blowing policy and their responsibilities to make sure information was passed to management.

We discussed the records kept of safeguarding issues and outcomes and we were told that there had only been one safeguarding investigation carried out when officers of the ERYC had visited in October 2010 and investigated a complaint, mentioned in outcome 4 Care and welfare of people who use services. The complaint had also been a safeguarding issue, which related to poor general care, poor pressure area care and reporting of it to the relevant healthcare organization and which was investigated as 'upheld'. The ERYC had informed CQC of the outcome.

The management team told us they had learned lessons from this experience, knew what action to take and had identified staff training needs as well, but action to ensure all staff had been trained had not been taken to remedy the shortfall in a timely manner, six months later. See outcome 14 Supporting workers. There had been no other safeguarding investigations.

We looked at a sample of peoples' records for money held in safe keeping and completed a balance check. We found that the system used had been well maintained and records had been accurately kept, while balances were also accurate. There had been a large amount of money saved for one person though and the home was asked to check on the level of insurance cover available for money held on the premises.