The Solace SARC - Bicester

On this page

• Overview
• Learning culture
• Safe systems, pathways and transitions
• Safeguarding
• Involving people to manage risks
• Safe environments
• Safe and effective staffing
• Infection prevention and control
• Medicines optimisation

We assessed 5 quality statements under this key question. There were effective systems in place to identify and report safeguarding issues. Staff worked collaboratively with the wider healthcare services, support systems and criminal justice agencies to improve outcomes for patients.

Find out what we look at when we assess this area in our information about our new Single assessment framework.

The judgement for Learning culture is based on the latest evidence we assessed for the Safe key question.

The judgement for Safe systems, pathways and transitions is based on the latest evidence we assessed for the Safe key question.

There were comprehensive policies and procedures to provide staff with information about identifying, reporting and dealing with suspected abuse, with specific safeguarding pathways in place depending upon the age of the patient.

All staff had completed the appropriate level of safeguarding training for their role and attended dedicated safeguarding supervision sessions where they had the opportunity to discuss recent cases and ensure they had been managed in line with guidance.

A full safeguarding assessment was completed for all patients as part of their forensic examination, and covered vulnerabilities including human trafficking and honour-based violence. Any concerns identified were recorded by staff and nurses were responsible for making any safeguarding referrals.

Safeguarding referrals were made for all children and young people attending the SARC and a forensic clinician always attended multi-agency strategy meetings for children and young people under 18 years old. Patient records we reviewed showed that safeguarding concerns had been assessed and appropriate referrals to protection agencies had been made.

Safeguarding management was considered as part of each daily case review, and any referrals were actively followed up to ensure they had been received by safeguarding agencies.

Freedom to Speak Up Champions were available if staff wanted to raise any concerns.

The judgement for Involving people to manage risks is based on the latest evidence we assessed for the Safe key question.

The SARC was located in a secure building, on the site of a police station with access that was separate and not open to the public. There was CCTV coverage and a security alarm for the premises. Staff told us they always left the building together, and never alone, for added security.

As the provider did not own the building, it was reliant on other agencies to provide key safety checks and equipment maintenance. Fire safety, gas maintenance, emergency lighting checks and portable appliance testing was undertaken by police colleagues, however the SARC manager had good oversight of when all maintenance checks and servicing requirements were due.

We viewed a weekly log which showed staff regularly flushed through water outlets to reduce the risk of legionella bacteria. Safety data sheets were available for all hazardous products in use on the premises and spill kits were available to ensure bodily fluids could be cleaned up safely.

The bathroom door could be opened from the outside in case of patient collapse and furnishings had been designed to be anti-ligature to reduce risks to patients.

At the time of our inspection, the premises did not meet the recommended standards for UKAS ISO accreditation’ (The Forensic Science Regulator requires that SARCs are to be accredited to ISO 15189:2022 for the forensic examination process by 2 October 2025). For example, the layout of the building did not enable the patient to progress through the facility in one direction, there was no separate donning or doffing area for staff to use before entering the examination room and there was no laundry facility to wash staff scrubs and patient towels. However, the site was part of a redevelopment programme in the South East Region, with plans in place for it to move to compliant premises in Kidlington at the end of the year.

Staff undertook training in basic life support, and some basic equipment and medicines were available on site. There was a defibrillator but no medicines were kept to respond to medical emergencies such as seizures, chest pain and asthma attacks.

At the time of our inspection 5 sexual offences examiners and 5 crisis workers were employed at the service. The service was fully staffed, and any last minute vacant shifts could be covered by staff from other sites. A doctor with paediatric competenciesprovided support both to this SARC location and a different site based in Slough.

Personnel files we reviewed for 2 recently recruited staff members demonstrated that appropriate pre-employment and vetting checks had been completed to ensure they were suitable for their role. The provider’s human resources department had good oversight of when staff’s DBS checks and professional registration renewals were due so that none were missed.

We spoke with 2 recently employed staff members both of whom told us they had received a thorough induction for their role.

All staff underwent a comprehensive induction, and the provider had recently received formal accreditation from the Faculty of Forensic Legal Medicine (FFLM) for its 5-day staff induction course.

The provider had arrangements to ensure staff training, including continuing professional development, was up-to-date and reviewed at the required intervals. Training records we viewed showed that staff had completed all essential training for their role. After a year of employment, nurses were eligible to attend an accredited university course in forensic science. Staff training figures were reported on at board meetings to ensure compliance with training requirements.

All staff received regular supervision and appraisal to identify any training needs and ensure their practice met professional standards, evidence of which we viewed.

The provider had appropriate policies in place in relation to infection prevention and control, and records showed that all staff were up to date with training. Daily cleaning checks were undertaken, as well as a monthly deep clean of the premises.

The manager undertook an infection control audit every month to ensure standards were maintained and a national anti-contamination specialist had recently been employed to provide training and advice for staff. However, at the time of our inspection, no environmental monitoring was taking place due to contractual issues, and therefore the provider was unable to assess the efficacy of cleaning procedures and DNA elimination procedures.

We noted that all areas of the SARC, were visibly clean and hygienic, including the waiting area, toilet, and corridors. We checked the examination room and surfaces including walls, floors and cupboard doors were free from dust and visible dirt. The room had sealed, coved flooring and modern sealed work surfaces so they could be cleaned easily. The hand wash sink met required standards. Medical consumables were stored in labelled wipeable containers.

A bin was available for the disposal of sharps, although this was not wall mounted to minimise risks to staff and patients. Staff disposed of waste in line with clinical standards.

As there was no laundry facility on the premises, staff took their own scrubs home to wash and the manager occasionally took patients’ towels home to wash. This would resolved with the forthcoming move to new premises.

There was controlled access to the forensic examination room to minimise the risk of DNA contamination and a detailed log was kept recording its use. All staff entering the forensic medical examination room wore appropriate protective equipment, including face mask, inner and outer gloves, hair caps and disposable barrier clothing.

After each patient was seen, the crisis worker undertook a full clean of the forensic examination room both to clean it and ensure any residual patient DNA was removed.

The provider had comprehensive medicines management procedures for the safe handling and administration of medicines.

There was a limited formulary comprising of emergency contraception and post exposure prophylaxis drugs (PEP) and patient group directions were in place to allow the registered nurses to supply them to patients. Staff maintained a record of all medicines issued to patients in their care record, along with the corresponding batch numbers.

Medicines were stored securely and the temperature of the cupboard in which they were held was monitored. Hepatitis B vaccines were stored appropriately in a fridge. Staff undertook weekly checks of the medicines, and we found stock level records were accurate.

Records we reviewed showed that the need for PEP and emergency contraception was assessed and dispensed according to nationally recommended guidance. Referrals had been made by staff to local genitourinary services for follow up testing and support.