The Shores – Dorset SARC

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.

The provider had safeguarding policies that reflected local procedures and national guidance, which were being updated to reflect recent publications and legislation. These provided staff with information on identifying, reporting and managing safeguarding concerns. Clear pathways ensured appropriate age-specific safeguarding responses. There was a designated safeguarding lead for the service alongside safeguarding leads at the provider level.

Staff understood their safeguarding responsibilities and had completed training appropriate to their roles. Managers were trained to provide specialist safeguarding supervision, and staff had access to regular supervisory sessions that included peer review and case reflection.

All patients received a thorough safeguarding assessment as part of their forensic examination, which considered a range of vulnerabilities including child sexual exploitation. Records demonstrated that staff identified concerns promptly, made appropriate referrals and followed these up to ensure they were received by the relevant agencies. Appropriate information sharing was in place, with summary records sent to GPs and full reports shared with social care and police where required.

The service worked effectively with local safeguarding partners and attended regular multi‑agency meetings, maintaining strong relationships with police, social care and health services to support coordinated safeguarding decision‑making and to improve outcomes for patients. For example, the SARC was receiving increased invitations to strategy meetings through joint working with the police and social care, and paediatric referrals to the SARC had risen by 300% due to engagement work with a local hospital.

The service’s safeguarding lead had recently established new quarterly safeguarding meetings to specifically address forensic safeguarding considerations and to support ongoing improvement. The service planned to review the findings of a safeguarding audit completed in March 2026 at the next meeting. Staff also had access to the provider’s safeguarding ‘hub’ which offered centralised oversight, guidance and support.

We found that the service’s website included relevant information and clear signposting for patients and their carers, including internet safety guidance for parents on the risks associated with children and young people accessing online content.

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

The SARC operated from police-owned premises, and staff assured themselves that safety checks for fire, portable appliance testing, emergency lighting, legionella management and equipment maintenance were completed by the estates team. Staff told us that any issues with equipment or repair requests were responded to promptly. The service carried out appropriate monitoring activities and submitted findings to the estates team. We noted staff could improve this process by ensuring remedial actions were completed. For example, water temperature checks showed they were not always within the recommended range to minimise the risk of legionella. In response to our findings, the provider took immediate action to address this and confirmed that additional oversight would be incorporated into their governance processes going forward.

Fire alarm testing and fire drills were organised by the police and took place regularly. Although police fire marshals were in place for the building, there were no designated fire marshals specifically for the SARC service. Following our feedback, the provider took immediate action, by identifying staff to take on this role and considering further improvements to their own fire safety protocols.

The SARC premises had been designed to reduce the risk of DNA contamination. . There was a clear, one-way flow for patients through pre-examination, forensic examination and post examination areas to minimise the risk of cross contamination. Forensic examination rooms were secured when not in use, with logs and sealing systems in place to maintain integrity. Dedicated areas were available for staff to put on and remove personal protective equipment, although we noted hand-washing facilities were located separately due to limitations at the premises.

The environment had been equipped with appropriate safety features, including panic alarm strips in examination rooms and waiting areas. Patient bathrooms had anti-ligature fixtures and doors that could be opened externally in the event of an emergency. Airflow and temperature were managed to ensure comfort and maintain forensic standards. Consumables were stored in restricted access rooms to protect their integrity.

Staff had access to the clinical equipment needed for their roles, including a portable colposcope for high quality forensic imaging. (a specialized magnifying instrument). Equipment was serviced in line with recommended requirements.

Staff were trained in basic life support or immediate life support as required for their roles. However, staff did not routinely participate in medical emergency simulations, which would help to identify areas for improvement, support a rapid response in the event of an emergency, and ensure their skills remained up to date.

Medical oxygen and a defibrillator were on site, and there were systems to ensure these were regularly checked and fit for use. There were processes to check compliance of this monitoring, and any gaps were reported through their governance processes. The service also held appropriate emergency medicines, and a system was in place to monitor stock levels and expiry dates. We found one item missing, sterile water used to prepare injectable medicines, which was promptly ordered. The provider told us they would update their monitoring sheet to include this.

The provider told us they had experienced some staffing challenges recently, but following a successful recruitment drive, there were several new staff who had joined or were due to join the service. Staffing levels were sufficient, and there were enough staff with the right skills and experience to meet patient need safely. The provider reported that neither patient care nor critical forensic timescales had been compromised during periods of reduced staffing.

Rotas were planned effectively and managed centrally using regular and ad hoc staff. Unexpected staff absences were covered either through their established processes or through a reciprocal agreement with another SARC. This provided further resilience and ensured patients were not affected by any staffing challenges. This was coordinated by the provider’s 24-hour call centre, where call handlers managed all calls for the organisation, including for this service.

The provider explained that a working group had been established to review the end‑to‑end process from call centre contact through to attendance at the service, to identify improvements for both patients and staff.

We looked at 4 staff recruitment files, for both clinical and non-clinical staff. We found recruitment checks had been conducted in accordance with regulations. However, the recording of these checks could be strengthened by ensuring that any gaps in employment were formally documented with an explanation, and by updating the reference form to include a completion date. There were systems to ensure the professional registration of clinical staff was monitored.

All staff received a comprehensive induction, which included a corporate introduction to the provider, and the provider had recently achieved accreditation from the Faculty of Forensic and Legal Medicine (FFLM) for its training programme. There were effective systems in place to ensure staff training and continuing professional development remained up to date. Mandatory training compliance was monitored and reported through governance processes, including board meetings and contract review meetings with commissioners. All staff received regular supervision and appraisals. Clinical supervision could include reflective practice groups, peer supervision, case management supervision, clinical formulation groups and structured clinical consultation.

All staff were offered support for their health and wellbeing, including an employee assistance program. They also had access to a range of staff benefits and wellbeing resources through a third-party platform. Freedom to Speak Up Champions were available should staff wish to raise concerns.

Staff we spoke with were consistently positive about their induction and wider training opportunities. They described the induction as being tailored to their learning needs, delivered at an appropriate pace, and providing them with the essential skills and knowledge required for their roles. Staff told us that the induction included a good mix of theory and practical training, alongside shadowing and peer support.

The provider had appropriate infection prevention and control (IPC) policies in place. Police estates contracted a cleaner to attend daily for general areas, as well as forensic cleaning after examinations had been completed and a monthly deep clean of the premises. The service carried out routine environmental monitoring to check the effectiveness of DNA decontamination processes in forensically cleaned areas. Records evidenced that appropriate action was taken following any positive results and address shortfalls in cleaning. Regular IPC audits were carried out, and any actions identified were addressed promptly. For example, staff had ordered 4 new chairs for the patient waiting room as they had become worn, and difficult to keep clean.

The SARC was visibly clean and hygienic throughout, including waiting areas, toilets, storage rooms and corridors. Forensic examination areas were designed to support effective cleaning, and hand‑washing facilities met required standards.

Medical consumables and sharps bins were appropriately stored. Cleaning equipment and materials were stored separately from forensic consumables. Spill kits were available to ensure bodily fluids could be cleaned safely.

Personal protective equipment (PPE) was readily accessible, with good stock levels of items. Staff entering forensic areas always wore the required PPE. All PPE was disposable, whereas patient towels were laundered by an external provider.

There was a process to maintain staff immunisation relevant to their role, which was managed centrally by the provider. However, 1 record did not evidence that the staff member had received all recommended immunisations in line with national guidance, for example tetanus and polio. The provider took immediate action and confirmed they would strengthen their processes.

The provider had medicines’ management procedures for the safe handling and administration of medicines and patient group directions were in place to allow the registered nurses to supply medicines to patients legitimately.

There was a limited formulary comprising of emergency contraception, post exposure prophylaxis drugs (PEP) and Hepatitis B vaccinations. In addition to these, the SARC held appropriate medicines to respond to medical emergencies and medicine was available to reverse patient opioid overdoses if needed.

Medicines were stored securely and the temperature of both the cupboard and fridge in which they were held was monitored each day. Staff undertook weekly checks of the medicines, and we found stock level records were accurate.

Staff maintained a record of all medicines issued to patients, along with the corresponding batch numbers and expiry dates, evidence of which we viewed in the case notes we checked.

Records showed that the need for HIV post exposure prophylaxis and emergency contraception was fully assessed and dispensed according to nationally recommended guidance. Red highlighting was used effectively in patient notes to alert sexual offences examiners (SOEs) to any drug contra indications and improve patient safety.

Systems were in place to ensure staff were notified of any national patient safety alerts from the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency.