amongst staff we will arrange for monthly fire drills to take place over the next 6 months and on a three monthly basis, thereafter. 7th paragraph Mental Capacity – X Act: The funding authorities were Correct. But involved in the decision making was no evidence process for each resident. that REACH had raised this with the LA. D.O.L.S. authorisations are either in X This has been place or pending in the case of each resident. The issue of restraint is explained in the covered in the D.O.L.S guidelines. report. was “This We would ask that the inspectors evidence that clarify their specific concerns in this understanding of regard. the term ‘restraint’ within the service was poor. We saw where people were deprived of their liberty; restraint was constantly used in the form of one to one care, using restraint to prevent people entering rooms and guiding people into different rooms.” Page 4 Summary of high use of agency staff Now reads ‘’ ‘’. findings Is levels – “Staffing The actual vacancy rate at the time the service were inadequate of the inspection was 6 out of a total safe? with use of agency of 27 posts excluding the manager [ staff to cover 22%]. The use of agency was lower shifts.” than this because permanent staff are able to provide cover through overtime. Also to achieve better continuity of care we draw agency workers from a regular pool of staff. We would wish to query how the C.Q.C. would define high levels of agency staff. This is referred too were no arrangements in Is the X throughout the ‘’ place to ensure people were service whole report. supported in an appropriate and caring? person centred manner.’’ This is a sweeping statement that is not justified given references
amongst staff we will arrange for monthly fire drills to take place over the next 6 months and on a three monthly basis, thereafter. 7th paragraph – Mental Capacity Act: The funding authorities were involved in the decision making process for each resident. D.O.L.S. authorisations are either in place or pending in the case of each resident. The issue of restraint is covered in the D.O.L.S guidelines. We would ask that the inspectors clarify their specific concerns in this regard. X X Correct. But was no evidence that REACH had raised this with the LA. This has been explained in the report. “This was evidence that understanding of the term ‘restraint’ within the service was poor. We saw where people were deprived of their liberty; restraint was constantly used in the form of one to one care, using restraint to prevent people entering rooms and guiding people into different rooms.” Page 4 Summary of findings – Is the service safe? Is the service caring? ‘’ high use of agency staff ‘’. The actual vacancy rate at the time of the inspection was 6 out of a total of 27 posts excluding the manager [ 22%]. The use of agency was lower than this because permanent staff are able to provide cover through overtime. Also to achieve better continuity of care we draw agency workers from a regular pool of staff. We would wish to query how the C.Q.C. would define high levels of agency staff. ‘’ were no arrangements in place to ensure people were supported in an appropriate and person centred manner.’’ This is a sweeping statement that is not justified given references X Now reads “Staffing levels were inadequate with use of agency staff to cover shifts.” This is referred too throughout the whole report.
REACH-Sistine-CQC-FAC-Log-Final.docx