You are here

Archived: Branston Court Care Home Good

The provider of this service changed - see new profile

All reports

Inspection report

Date of Inspection: 13 November 2012
Date of Publication: 8 December 2012
Inspection Report published 8 December 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

We looked at the personal care or treatment records of people who use the service, carried out a visit on 13 November 2012, observed how people were being cared for 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.

We used the Short Observational Framework for Inspection (SOFI). SOFI is a specific way of observing care to help us understand the experience of people who could not talk with us.

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 staff told us they had received training on safeguarding procedures and protecting vulnerable adults. They recognised signs of potential abuse and were able to talk about what action they would take if they were aware people may be at risk from abuse or harm.

Where safeguarding concerns had been raised, the registered manager had liaised with the local authority and other professionals to investigate events. This meant they had followed the correct procedures, including notifying us of their concerns.

We talked to staff about how they would raise concerns about risks to people and poor practice in the service. Staff told us they were aware of the whistleblowing procedure and felt they would be able to raise concerns and be supported by the management team. This meant suitable action would be taken to protect staff if they raised a concern in good faith, to protect people in receipt of care or from potential harm.

Staff at the home have been given information about the Mental Capacity Act and staff have received training for deprivation of liberty safeguarding legislation.

One person using the service had an order to deprive them of their liberty. The order had been granted by the deprivation of liberty safeguards team. Under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 they have the authority to decide, when a person does not have capacity to make a specific decision, they can assess whether it is in the best interests of people to deprive people of their liberty. We saw the decision was made in consultation with people who were important to the person. This meant the provider acted appropriately to safeguard the person, and decisions were made to maintain the person’s well being and their safety.