You are here

Archived: Woodrow Cottage

The provider of this service changed - see new profile

All reports

Inspection report

Date of Inspection: 3 January 2013
Date of Publication: 20 February 2013
Inspection Report published 20 February 2013 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, reviewed information sent to us by other organisations, carried out a visit on 3 January 2013 and observed how people were being cared for. We talked with people who use the service and talked with staff.

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 spoke to three of the seven people living in the home. These people use a programme of signs and symbols as their main means of communication. We have not included their verbal views in this report as we were unable to accurately verify what they told us. We observed how care was being provided to help us understand the experiences of people using the service.

We spoke to two staff members and the manager who were aware of the safeguarding and whistle blowing procedures. They told us that they had received the relevant training and this was confirmed by the training records we observed.They expressed their confidence that any concerns or issues they raised would be acted on appropriately and demonstrated their knowledge of guidelines for keeping people they supported safe.

We saw guidance for staff on how to recognise signs of potential risk and respond positively to challenging behaviours. Staff demonstrated their understanding of the procedures and knowledge of how different individuals may communicate through their behaviours. There was a clear policy on the use of physical interventions as a last resort and upholding the dignity and rights of people using the service. All staff had either attended training on the use of physical interventions or in the case of two new staff were booked to attend later in January 2013.

Details of the whistle blowing procedure and the local safeguarding team were easily accessible for all staff in the entrance hallway.

Records showed that risk assessments were carried out to protect people using the service and the risk management plans provided clear details for staff delivering the care and support. Staff had signed to say they had read and understood the risk assessments and agreed to work in accordance with them.

The manager was aware of the process for making a Deprivation of Liberty Safeguarding referral. The service would include this as part a Best Interest review, so that the actions taken to protect an individual who lacks capacity to make decisions are in that person's best interests. The detail of the process was observed in an easy read flow chart in the office. We saw an example of this process having been followed.

We were told of a safeguarding referral that had taken place in June 2012, the details had been recorded, the Care Quality Commission had been notified appropriately and the incident investigated in line with the local safeguarding guidelines. The records showed us that service had taken appropriate and timely actions as a result of the investigation and there were no outstanding matters required by the service.