You are here

Archived: Action for Change - Hastings and Rother

All reports

Inspection report

Date of Inspection: 25 November 2013
Date of Publication: 24 December 2013
Inspection Report published 24 December 2013 PDF | 74.06 KB

People should get safe and coordinated care when they move between different services (outcome 6)

Meeting this standard

We checked that people who use this service

  • Receive safe and coordinated care, treatment and support where more than one provider is involved, or they are moved between services.

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 25 November 2013, 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 and talked with staff.

Our judgement

People’s health, safety and welfare was protected when more than one provider was involved in their care and treatment, or when they moved between different services. This was because the provider worked in co-operation with others.

Reasons for our judgement

We were told that the service always aimed to work with other providers to achieve the best possible outcome for people. However, this was dependant on individuals who used the service agreeing that their information may be shared with particular providers. All treatment records viewed contained information about other professionals and providers that were involved with the individual.

For people who had agreed that their information may be shared we saw there was a range of providers involved with their care and treatment. People were referred to their GP’s for blood tests when required. We saw that the test results and any recommended treatment or concerns identified were reported back to the service.

Where people had children living at home we saw evidence of collaborative working between social workers and the service. Risk assessments took place to identify if the individual’s behaviour placed their children at risk of harm or neglect.

We saw evidence of communication that demonstrated how a social worker had worked with the service and mental health services. This meant that an appropriate level of treatment had been developed for one individual and their family. This meant that people’s health, safety and welfare was protected when more than one provider was involved in their care and treatment, or when they moved between different services. This was because the provider worked in co-operation with others.

Some people were referred to the organisation from the probation service. We saw these referrals contained appropriate information. Staff told us that if the probation service had identified a person who may display challenging behaviour the service would be informed. This meant that staff were aware of any risks to themselves prior to meeting the individual. If appropriate, one-to-one meetings could then be undertaken in a secure setting.