You are here

Chesterfield Royal Hospital Requires improvement

We are carrying out a review of quality at Chesterfield Royal Hospital. We will publish a report when our review is complete. Find out more about our inspection reports.
All reports

Inspection report

Date of Inspection: 11 August 2012
Date of Publication: 5 October 2012
Inspection report published 5 October 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

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

Patients we spoke with told us they felt safe and able to report any concerns they may have to staff or the person in charge. Relatives we spoke with also felt able to report any concerns to staff.

We saw staff ensuring safety where patients had been assessed as at risk of falling. For example, by using bed rails, or by having the bed lowered to the floor with a mattress on the floor beside the bed in case the patient rolled out.

Other evidence

Were steps taken to prevent abuse?

Staff told us that they received training about safeguarding vulnerable adults as part of their induction. Staff also received refresher training each year to ensure they understood their responsibilities regarding the prevention of abuse.

The information we held about the provider prior to our visit showed there was a low risk that they were not compliant with this outcome. The information indicated that the provider reported incidents as required, and the speed of reporting was good when compared with similar trusts.

We found that the provider managed allegations of abuse appropriately by following agreed multi-agency procedures. There was a patient safety team based in the hospital who dealt with all adverse incidents, including any allegations of abuse or neglect. We saw that investigations of incidents were carried out and the results analysed. We saw action plans from recent investigations giving details of action to be taken to reduce the risk of re-occurrence. There was a safeguarding adults group who met regularly and whose membership included Derbyshire County Council Adult Care services staff. This group discussed all allegations of abuse involving the Trust and looked at what lessons could be learned.

Did people know how to raise concerns?

Patients and visitors told us they knew how to raise concerns. The provider may find it useful to note that we did not see any information displayed on the wards we visited about abuse and how to report it.

Staff we spoke with knew what would constitute abuse and knew the procedures to follow to report any suspicion or allegation of abuse.

Were Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards used appropriately?

The staff member in charge on each ward told us there were no current Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) authorisations in place. Staff understood when DoLS should be considered. We saw evidence that assessments of patients' mental capacity to make decisions had taken place, and also assessments of decisions taken in patients' best interests.