You are here

Princess Lodge Limited Requires improvement

All reports

Inspection report

Date of Inspection: 6 February 2014
Date of Publication: 12 March 2014
Inspection Report published 12 March 2014 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 6 February 2014, 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 reviewed information given to us by the provider.

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

We assessed this outcome area in our last inspection in October 2013 and we found that the provider was not meeting this standard, we set compliance actions and told the provider to improve. At the time we found that there was no appropriate system in place to show that allegations of abuse were recorded or responded to appropriately.

During this inspection we saw evidence that where safeguarding concerns had been identified by the home, these had been referred to the local safeguarding authority and discussions had taken place accordingly. This meant that the provider had responded appropriately to any allegations of abuse.

We saw that safeguarding procedures in the home had been improved as a result of initial findings from investigations by the local authority and monitoring visits by Sandwell clinical commissioning group. This included staff training in safeguarding vulnerable adults and systems to report any concerns. This meant that the provider had acted on feedback and improved safeguarding procedures.

We saw that the provider had a safeguarding and whistleblowing policy in place so staff were clear of their roles and responsibilities. Some of the staff explained how they would report and escalate concerns. One member of staff told us, "If my concerns were not listened to I would take it further until they were acted on." One relative told us, “If I have any concerns I would approach the manager and staff, they are helpful.” This showed that procedures were in place to safeguard vulnerable people.

All of the staff that we spoke with reported that they had received recent training in safeguarding which included the Mental Capacity Act. We saw evidence to support this. All of the staff that we spoke with told us they were aware of the need to safeguard vulnerable people from harm and were able to explain their role in protecting vulnerable people. Staff that we spoke with said they provided a good standard of care and would not allow any poor practices. All of the people spoken with told us that they felt safe at the home and that staff took time to listen to their concerns and treat them with dignity and respect. This showed that staff were able to recognise and respond to any allegations of abuse and ensure people's rights were protected.