SCIE Guide 46
Published: February 2012
This resource has not been updated since February 2012. It may not reflect current policy but still provides valuable practice guidance.
This guide aims to identify the issues that commonly lead to safeguarding referrals from care homes. The underlying causes are also identified; neither are in order of prevalence. Prevention checklists are provided to help both commissioners and providers to work towards a reduction in occurrence of these issues. There are additional links to resources.
The evidence underpinning this work was gathered from people using services, carers, commissioners, service providers, safeguarding leads and the Independent Safeguarding Authority (ISA). It shows clearly that most safeguarding activity relating to care homes occurs as a result of poor practice and poor quality of service rather than malicious intent. The impact of poor practice and neglect can be just as significant as intentional abuse and yet it is arguably far easier to prevent.
In all cases of suspected neglect or harm, local multi-agency policies and procedures should be followed. The safety of the individual concerned should be of paramount importance, and all action taken and decisions made should be clearly recorded. Local protocols should determine when a concern should be referred through safeguarding procedures and when it should be dealt with through supervision, training and other practice improvement mechanisms. We provide a number of examples of decision-making tools from across the country.
In this guide:
NICE has accredited the process used by SCIE to produce guidelines. Accreditation is valid for 5 years from July 2011 and is applicable to guidance produced using the processes described in the SCIE Guide Production Toolkit.
For full details on our accreditation visit: NICE Accreditation.
There are isolated cases of medication being mismanaged intentionally, such as the misappropriation and misuse of drugs by staff. There are more widespread issues regarding the misuse of sedatives to control challenging behaviour. There is no doubt that such issues are extremely serious and should be referred through safeguarding procedures.
The issue of poor management of medication, however, is far more common. Recent research for the Department of Health shows that 7 out of 10 residents are exposed to at least one medication error per day. Mistakes are made by people across the process from the GP to the pharmacist and care home staff. In the care home, incidents occur where the resident is accidentally given the wrong medication, given too much or too little of their own medication or given it at the wrong time. Most errors do not result in significant harm but mistakes can lead to serious and, in some cases, fatal consequences.
Good medical care also includes the proper use of non-oral medication, equipment and appliances including catheter care, use of oxygen etc. Only trained staff should be providing such care.
Many people who are frail and have restricted mobility are at risk of developing sores on the points of their body which receive the most pressure. These are known as pressure sores and are sometimes called bed sores or ulcers. Pressure sores start with skin discoloration but, if left untreated, they can become very deep and infected; in the worst cases they can be life threatening. With management and care, pressure sores can be avoided in most cases.
Pressure sores are not always due to neglect and each individual case should be considered, taking into account the person’s medical condition, prognosis, any skin conditions and their own views on their care and treatment. These things, rather than the grading of the pressure sore, should determine whether a safeguarding referral is appropriate. Other signs of neglect, such as poor personal hygiene and living environment, poor nutrition and hydration may help to influence this decision.
Residents should be supported to stay as active and independently mobile as possible and the support they need should be recorded in their care plans. Some people who are frail or have mobility problems may be at greater risk of falling. The consequences of falls can be very costly for both the individual – in terms of their health, wellbeing and mobility – and for services. Following a fall, the individual may require more intensive services for longer and, in some cases, may never return to previous levels of mobility. A fall does not automatically indicate neglect and each individual case should be examined in order to determine whether there is a safeguarding concern. There are a number of things that can be done to reduce the risk of falls while keeping residents active and mobile.
The research underpinning the SCIE Dignity in care guide highlighted that people receiving care support often feel they are being roughly treated, rushed or ignored. People can experience such treatment as abuse. Unexplained bruising is a common reason for safeguarding referrals and rough handling may often be the cause. Care workers should be mindful that the people they are caring for may be in pain due to illness or disability and may bruise easily due to physically frailty. People with dementia, learning disabilities or mental health problems could be fearful of physical intervention due to lack of understanding of what is happening to them.
Shouting, raised voices or the tone used may also cause distress and harm to people and they may experience such interactions as intimidating. This can occur when people make assumptions about the person’s inability to hear or understand, it can be due to cultural difference where a worker may naturally converse more loudly than the care recipient, or it could be a result of the care worker being busy and stressed due to inadequate staffing levels. Tone is important: people should be addressed in a respectful manner and not in a way that is sharp, abrupt or condescending.
It is very important that the home demonstrates a ‘zero tolerance’ approach to insensitive care and that residents are encouraged to comment on their experience of receiving care so that such matters can be addressed.
Poor nutritional care in care homes and hospitals has been frequently highlighted in recent years. This led to a host of reports and guidance to support improvements in the health and social care sectors. As part of the Joint Action Plan: Improving nutritional care (DH, 2007), SCIE has produced a comprehensive guide on this issue.
Food is the ‘highlight of the day’ for many people in care homes and a measure of the overall quality of the service. Between 19 and 30 per cent of all people admitted to hospitals, care homes or mental health units are at risk of malnutrition (BAPEN 2007). The consequences of malnutrition and dehydration can be very costly both for the individual, in terms of their health and wellbeing, and for services as people may become ill and require more intervention for longer.
People in residential care and their relatives often complain of lack of stimulation, activity, opportunities for social interaction, including sexual relationships, and community participation. The results of inactivity and social isolation can be experienced as harmful and abusive by individuals and can have a negative effect on mental health and general wellbeing. Commissioners should ensure that service specifications include support to access social activities and opportunities for community participation.
‘Institutional abuse occurs when the routines, systems and regimes of an institution result in poor or inadequate standards of care and poor practice which affects the whole setting and denies, restricts or curtails the dignity, privacy, choice, independence or fulfilment of adults at risk’ (SCIE 2010). For example, people being forced to eat or go to bed at a particular time can be experienced as abuse. The culture of the organisation may promote institutionalised care and may cause ‘the practices of well-intentioned staff to deteriorate’. It may also allow intentional abuse to go unreported (Marsland et al. 2007).
Care homes should promote a personalised service through flexibility and avoid strict routines. Staffing rotas should be focused around residents’ individual needs and preferences.
Care homes often have to deal with altercations and abuse between residents, some of which entail physical attacks. This could be the result of tensions between people living in close proximity, and may also be caused or exacerbated by misunderstandings due to dementia, learning disability, or mental health problems. Some instances of challenging behaviour may be due to poor relationships with, and poor management of, residents. Training in managing challenging behaviour, appropriate restraint and de-escalating situations is important.
Prior to someone choosing a home, their assessment should consider their compatibility with other residents and any risks to the individual or other residents due to challenging behaviour. In order to reduce or avoid abuse and harm, care homes should work to prevent such incidents occurring by identifying triggers and supporting individuals who perpetrate abuse as well as their victims.
A study into the abuse of older people in the UK (O’Keeffe et al. 2007) found that financial abuse is the second most prevalent type of mistreatment after neglect. The No secrets definition of financial abuse is:
‘financial or material abuse, including theft, fraud, exploitation, pressure in connection with wills, property or inheritance or financial transactions, or the misuse or misappropriation of property, possessions or benefits’ (DH 2000).
Older people, particularly people with dementia, are among those at greatest risk of financial abuse. Indications are that 60–80 per cent of financial abuse against older people takes place in the home and 15–20 per cent in residential care (Help the Aged 2008). People in care homes may be better protected than those who are isolated or living alone, for example, they may be less likely to be targeted by rogue traders or telesales fraud, but there are different risks of financial abuse for this group. Some residents will have little or no control over their own money and are reliant on relatives or the home to safeguard their finances. Examples of financial abuse in care homes include:
A report on financial abuse (PDF) (ACPO/SCIE 2011) highlighted that some care providers did not see it as their role to raise concerns about the decisions of a ‘deputy’ or an ‘appointee’. Others reported that they had raised concerns with the local authority only to be told that – if a deputy or appointee was in place – nothing could be done.
If people are to be safeguarded against financial abuse then concerns about deputies and appointees must be reported so that best interests meetings can take place. If the local authority receives an alert it can apply to have the deputyship or appointeeship revoked and awarded to the local authority deputy.
The Independent Safeguarding Authority (ISA) has identified poor practice in recruitment, induction and supervision as root causes of many safeguarding issues. This presents a major opportunity for the prevention of abuse. Commissioners should examine recruitment procedures of the home to ensure they are robust.
Staffing levels that are inadequate to meet the assessed needs of individuals are often cited as a reason for poor quality care. There are a number of problems that lead to inadequate staffing that are interrelated in that each problem can exacerbate other related problems:
All care homes should have policies and procedures in place to cover all areas of care home practice, including those highlighted as frequently leading to safeguarding referrals. These policies and procedures should be submitted as part of the Care Quality Commission (CQC) registration process and subsequent inspections. However, it is often the case, particularly with regard to safeguarding referrals, that procedures are not followed.
To ensure good quality services and good safeguarding practice, commissioners must make regular checks to ensure that the procedures are followed.
Care home staff often receive only minimal training in line with statutory requirements. This is of course related to resources, but a lack of investment in staff is likely to be costly in the long run due to increased turnover and recruitment costs.
It is also the case that when staff are trained individually by being sent on a course they find it hard to change their practice on returning to work because of the culture, environment and peer pressure. It is often wiser and more economical to provide training to the staff as a team so that they can support each other to implement changes.
From the perspective of people using services, it is clear that as long as there is a lack of choice and alternatives in service provision, poor services will continue to operate. There are many reasons why people may use services that are poor including lack of alternatives, affordability, location, choice and pressure from family members.
With real choice, individuals would choose not to use poorer services and such services would consequently have to improve or go out of business. This is a key point for commissioners as they must, where the market has failed, encourage variety and flexibility in provision to promote quality, choice and control for individuals. This in turn will reduce the risk of abuse, neglect and harm.
Poor record-keeping is essentially poor communication and can put both staff and residents at risk. Records include:
People using care services often report the experience of being treated in a way that is ‘less than human’ or ‘dehumanising’. Research has examined the way in which workers can distance themselves from, and fail to show empathy towards, the people they support. ‘The tendency to view a patient as less than human has been identified with a need to defend oneself against the anxiety that their condition provokes’ (Menzies 1977). Wardhaugh and Wilding (1993) referred to the concept as ‘neutralisation of moral concerns’. This can ‘place residents beyond the bounds of normal, acceptable behaviour, allowing abusive behaviours to be justified and perceived as legitimate’ (Marsland et al. 2007). This issue has been closely related to the concept of ‘burnout’. Workers who feel that they put more into the job than they get out are more likely to detach themselves emotionally from their work (Thomas and Rose 2009; Rai 2010).
Institutionalisation can also lead to dehumanisation as the regimes and routines of the home are placed above the needs of individuals. (Institutionalised care). Dehumanisation can be experienced in a number of different ways including being: