You are here

All reports

Inspection report

Date of Inspection: 28 July 2014
Date of Publication: 3 September 2014
Inspection Report published 03 September 2014 PDF | 87.98 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, carried out a visit on 28 July 2014, talked with people who use the service and talked with carers and / or family members. We talked with staff and reviewed information given to us by the provider.

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

The two people we spoke with told us they felt safe living at Hawkstone House and that staff were kind and treated them nicely. All of the relatives told us they felt people were safe and that staff treated people with consideration and respect.

The provider had a policy in place for safeguarding people from abuse. This policy provided staff with guidance on how to detect different types of abuse and how to report abuse. There was also a whistle blowing policy and the provider had a dedicated telephone line which staff could ring to report matters of concern. The provider may find it useful to note the contact details for the local authority adult protection team and the Care Quality Commission (CQC) were not included in these policies. We raised this with the clinical services manager who said they would ensure the appropriate authorities contact details were included.

We looked at the residents meeting minutes from March 2014. We saw safeguarding was discussed with people who lived at the home. Staff explained how people may be abused and who they could contact if they thought they or someone else was being abused.

The deputy manager explained that all staff receiving annual safeguarding vulnerable adults training. We saw records which confirmed this. The three staff we spoke with were able to confidently provide examples of how people could be abused by poor working practices. They were able to tell us about different types of abuse and were clear about how to report any concerns they might have about people’s welfare and safety.

Prior to our inspection the CQC was informed about an incident in April 2014 where staff members had blown the whistle on the conduct of other staff members working at the home. The provider investigated the concerns raised and provided CQC with their investigation report. The provider may find it useful to note that two of the three staff we spoke with during our inspection told us they would not feel confident to call the provider’s whistleblowing telephone line in the future because the names of the staff members who blew the whistle in April 2014 had not remained confidential. Both staff said they would contact CQC if they had a whistleblowing concern in the future.

We spoke with the clinical services manager about the measures they had taken to ensure this did not happen again and that, where possible, staff identities would remain confidential if they called the whistleblowing line in the future. They showed us a letter that had been sent to all staff and had been discussed at the team meeting on 23rd April 2014 regarding the importance of confidentiality and not discussing internal investigations with other staff members. However, as there were no on-going investigations at the time of our inspection we were unable to test how effective this letter had been in improving staff's adherence to confidentiality protocols.

The provider may also find it useful to note the service had not notified CQC or the Bradford Adult Protection Unit about two of the three people who were deemed to be at risk of harm by the whistle blowers. This was discussed with the clinical services manager, who assured us it was a mistake and would not happen again. From the information we hold about the service we know that other notifications regarding potential safeguarding incidents have been made to CQC.

Physical interventions were sometimes used by staff to ensure people were kept safe when they became anxious. The deputy manager told us all staff received annual training to enable them to correctly carry out physical interventions when required. We saw that each person had an individual protocol for when and how physical intervention should be used. This included information such as strategies around how to avoid potential triggers and what alternative action should be tried to calm the person before physical intervention was used. Each protocol we saw provided staff with appropriate information to ensu