You are here

Archived: Dimensions 6a Prospect Place

All reports

Inspection report

Date of Inspection: 19 December 2012
Date of Publication: 11 January 2013
Inspection Report published 11 January 2013 PDF | 77.64 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 looked at the personal care or treatment records of people who use the service, carried out a visit on 19 December 2012, observed how people were being cared for and talked with carers and / or family members. We 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 found that people were protected from the risk of abuse. People who used the service were not able to tell us about their experience of the care provided. We spent time observing what was happening in the home. We did not see any signs of distress or unhappiness. We saw that people were relaxed in the company of staff while they attended to their care needs.

We saw that a copy of the organisational policy on safeguarding vulnerable adults was available for staff to read. This policy made reference to legislation and described what constituted abuse. Information provided by Worcestershire County Council on safeguarding was also available.

We spoke with three members of staff who were on duty about the action they would take if they saw a potential safeguarding incident or suspected possible abuse. They were aware of the different types of abuse and the signs people may display if subject to abusive practices. Staff said that they would tell the registered manager or the on call manager of any abuse or suspected abuse. Staff also made reference to other agencies such as the police and the Care Quality Commission (CQC). One member of staff said that they, “Have no worries here” when we spoke with them about safeguarding.

Information was seen to be available for staff regarding a dedicated whistle blowing telephone number. This facility was available for staff to report any concerns or worries that they may have had about the service provided. Staff were also aware of the names of senior managers in the organisation who they could speak with if they had concerns about safeguarding.

We saw that where people who used the service needed assistance with the management of their money this was provided. Systems were in place to keep people’s money safe and transactions had been recorded. This meant that people were safeguarded against abusive situations regarding their own money when managed by staff.