You are here

Oaklands Park Domiciliary Care Service Good

All reports

Inspection report

Date of Inspection: 21 October 2013
Date of Publication: 6 November 2013
Inspection Report published 06 November 2013 PDF

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 21 October 2013, observed how people were being cared for and talked with people who use the service. We talked with staff and reviewed information sent to us by commissioners of services.

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. The systems in place to protect people from abuse were understood and followed by staff.

Reasons for our judgement

People who used 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. All staff had completed safeguarding training at a level appropriate to their job role. The two staff members we spoke with about this outcome area were knowledgeable about what they should report and the systems in place to safeguard people. This included the provider’s policies and procedures and the roles of external agencies in safeguarding.

We saw that arrangements in place to manage people’s finances protected them from abuse. People’s capacity to manage their money independently had been assessed. If people were able to manage independently this was respected. For other people different controls were in place. For example, if a person could not remember their own Personal Identification Number (PIN) they signed to withdraw their money at the bank. People who needed support to budget had different accounts for bills and rents and day to day expenditure. This meant they withdrew an agreed amount and were supported to budget each week. When staff were involved in supporting a person to budget or buy items a full audit trail including receipts was kept. A full financial audit was in progress at the service at the time of the inspection.

We saw that people who used the service had easy read copies of the complaints form and a copy of the service user guide in their daily care files which they held. The two people we spoke with told us they felt safe when supported by staff. One person added that staff were respectful when interacting with them and said staff respected their privacy. Our observations and discussions with staff supported this.

The provider responded appropriately to any allegation of abuse. Records showed that we had been notified of relevant incidents or allegations which had occurred since our last inspection. These notifications also demonstrated that local authority safeguarding procedures had been followed. We were satisfied that appropriate disciplinary action, including dismissal and referral to the Independent Safeguarding Authority (ISA) were made when indicated with a former staff member.

People who used the service were protected against the risk of unlawful or excessive control or restraint because the provider had made suitable arrangements. All staff members we spoke with were clear that restraint was not accepted practice, even if they had been trained in this while working at another service. When asked how they would respond to such incidents staff told us about the behaviour support plans in place for people.