You are here

All reports

Inspection report

Date of Inspection: 5 December 2012
Date of Publication: 31 January 2013
Inspection Report published 31 January 2013 PDF | 93.98 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 have gathered about Leighton Hospital, looked at the personal care or treatment records of people who use the service, reviewed information sent to us by the provider and carried out a visit on 5 December 2012. We observed how people were being cared for, talked with people who use the service, talked with carers and / or family members and 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 visited Ward 2 and spoke to senior staff about the arrangements in place on the Ward for the Protection Of Vulnerable Adults (POVA), also known as “safeguarding”. We were told that if staff suspected abuse they would contact senior staff who would gather information prior to faxing a safeguarding alert to social services which was in line with The Trust and local authority safeguarding procedures. When we spoke to other ward staff they were clear about what constituted abuse and that they would report it internally but with one exception they did not talk about the role of social services in safeguarding.

We asked about the arrangements for training staff in safeguarding and we were told that these were addressed though The Trust’s Biennial Mandatory Update (BEMU) programme which all staff attended every two years as well as being covered on induction for all new staff. This was confirmed by The Trust’s Training Prospectus as well as by staff that we spoke to..

We spoke to staff on Ward 21b about the protection of vulnerable adults. Staff were knowledgeable about safeguarding and were able to tell us what they looked out for and what they would do if they had concerns. Recently appointed staff referred to training they have received as part of their induction and other staff mentioned the BEMU updates. Staff also generally understood that safeguarding was the responsibility of social services and investigations were conducted independently of the hospital.

We visited a third ward and spoke to two members of staff about their knowledge of safeguarding. One member of staff knew about the different kinds of abuse and was clear that they would act should they have any concerns, however they told us they would contact the “Head of Patient Safety” on a particular number rather than follow the hospital’s procedures. Another member of staff was less confident in their knowledge of adult safeguarding.

The provider might find it useful to note that as we spoke to staff if became clear that many were more conversant with the procedures for protecting children than they were for those intended to protect adults. If was also of note that staff on Ward 21b were more confident than staff elsewhere in the safeguarding of adults.

One member of staff said to us that the training for children was classroom based and that for adults self guided through a workbook. Another member of staff could not recall the POVA training being in their workbook although they said they had completed the course. A third member of staff recalled completing competence checks following the training for safeguarding children but not for adults.

We asked to speak to The Trust’s lead for adult safeguarding. When we met them we noted that they were new to the post and had been working with senior managers to assess The Trust’s safeguarding provision and make improvements. They told us that it was intended that the processes for safeguarding children and adults be brought together and they were working to do this with the local safeguarding authority. They also said that they, like CQC, had noted the training for children to be more effective than that for adults and as a result future training in the safeguarding of adults would be face to face. We were reassured by the plans being developed and that issues that we had identified during the inspection were already recognised and being addressed by The Trust.

Following our visit we asked The Trust for documents known as the Provider Compliance Assessment (PCA) for this outcome. These describe how the organisation considers it meets the requirements of the regulations. These documents that gave a cogent account of how the organisation met its responsibilities and were consistent with the information we gathered during the inspection.