You are here

Royal Surrey County Hospital Good

All reports

Inspection report

Date of Inspection: 16 August 2012
Date of Publication: 4 September 2012
Inspection Report published 4 September 2012 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

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.

The provider was meeting this standard.

User experience

When we interviewed patients on the wards we asked them if they felt safe in the hands of people providing their care at this hospital. Those patients who were able to answer this question said they did feel safe, and some added comments such as “Yes, completely” and “They are very kind. I have seen the staff be kind and patient.”

On the Outpatients’ self completion questionnaires we also asked people if they felt safe in the hands of the people providing their care at this hospital. All the respondents answered ‘Yes’ to this question, and there were a number of additional comments such as ‘Definitely’ and ‘100%.’

Other evidence

During our visit we noted that there was information displayed in all parts of the hospital for patients and visitors about safeguarding adults and children, including information from the local authority who have the lead responsibility for safeguarding people.

We asked to speak to the lead member of staff for safeguarding to discuss the current arrangements. The hospital co-operated fully with this request and arranged for five members of staff involved in safeguarding adults and children to speak with us. This group consisted of the safeguarding trainer, the paediatric matron and the paediatric safeguarding lead person, the head of nursing for patient quality and experience, and the lead nurse for learning disabilities. They told us about the staff training arrangements to ensure staff were aware of their responsibilities, and showed us copies of the training material that was being used. There were systems in place to ensure staff attended the relevant training.

We were told that all staff have Level 1 (basic) safeguarding adults’ training as part of the corporate induction, and this included volunteers, the housekeeping staff and porters. All clinical staff had the Level 2 (intermediate) training, and senior staff (matrons and above) undertake the Level 3 (advanced) training. This was similar for children’s safeguarding training except that at the time of our visit, only staff involved with children’s care had Level 2 training; this was currently being extended to all clinical staff, irrespective of whether they worked in paediatrics. The training statistics we requested showed that 71.5% of staff had completed the required training, the target being 80% by the end of the year. We were told that because of the turnover of staff this figure would never be 100%. Overall we found that there were good arrangements in place to ensure staff received the relevant training.

The safeguarding group outlined their joint working arrangements with the local authority, and we were given details of the quarterly safeguarding monitoring arrangements. The documents we saw showed that where issues had been identified, any themes or trends were highlighted and appropriate action had been taken.

During our discussion with clinical staff they demonstrated a good understanding and awareness of safeguarding vulnerable people. Staff gave examples of the different types of abuse and explained how such concerns would be reported and managed in the trust. A few staff were not completely clear about their own level of involvement if an incident should happen on their ward, for example whether they should start investigating any alleged incident. This was passed on to the safeguarding trainer who said that whilst this was already covered in training, she would ensure it was given more emphasis in future.

We contacted the local authority who are the lead agency for safeguarding adults and children. We asked them about how the hospital was performing in relation to safeguarding. They told us that “Investigations undertaken by the hospital are completed in a timely manner and shared appropriately with the social care team. The manager of the social care team meets weekly with the Head of Nursing and the Safeguarding Lead for RSCH to review the alerts which have been received, and update on the completed and outstanding actions on all open cases. This is clearly helping to ensure cases move through the safeguarding process, and that information is continually shared between the two agencies.”