You are here

Archived: Home Instead Senior Care Good

This service is now registered at a different address - see new profile

All reports

Inspection report

Date of Inspection: 13 September 2012
Date of Publication: 17 October 2012
Inspection Report published 17 October 2012 PDF | 51.95 KB

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 reviewed all the information we hold about this provider, carried out a visit on 13/09/2012, looked at records of people who use services, talked to staff, reviewed information from stakeholders and talked to people who use services.

Our judgement

The provider was meeting this standard. 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.

User experience

We used a number of different methods to help us understand the experiences of people using the service, because the people using the service had complex needs which meant they were not always able to tell us their experiences.

We spoke with relatives of people using Home Instead and all those we talked with expressed satisfaction with the service. They told us that Home Instead managed the care well and they had confidence in staff to provide safe care and support. One person quoted “I trust the staff; we have a lovely care worker who has made such a difference”.

Other evidence

We spoke with staff and asked them questions about how they safeguard and protect vulnerable adults they support. Staff we spoke with were able to provide clear descriptions of what was meant by the term ‘safeguarding’ and ‘abuse’ and confirmed that they had received training to support their work. Staff training records confirmed this. We looked at care plans which illustrated how risks to people were assessed, reviewed and addressed.

Staff also received a range of training including person centred care, risk assessments and information on the Mental Capacity Act 2005, and were able to explain aspects of the Act in relation to their work.

We looked at staff records which reflected that staff had been recruited with relevant career histories and that both references and Criminal Record Bureau checks had been requested and received prior to their employment.

The provider may wish to note that while Home Instead had policies and procedures for reporting concerns of safeguarding, these were not always being fully utilised. We learned of one case where an incident was not reported to the local safeguarding team; however the incident was fully addressed and recorded immediately within the service.

Senior staff used regular staff supervision sessions to discuss the protection of vulnerable adults and how to recognise signs of potential abuse.