Unit 7: principles of safe practice in health and social care
Task 2
P6-
In the Firs residence case study, there was a breach of the health and safety at
work legislation as it states that employers must protect the health, safety and
welfare at work of all their residents. (worksmart, 2021)
The employees at the residence have failed to do this as the garden gate was
broken which put vulnerable adults with dementia at risk of going missing. The
employees in case study 3 have also failed to meet the care act 2014 which
aims to prevent vulnerable individuals from mistreatment and improve their
quality of life. (training, 2019) For example, Elise has complained about her
items missing however, the staff assumed that she was hiding the items and
didn’t help her look for them. This made Elise feel distressed and taken
advantage of. The fundamental standards of CQC include being treated with a
person centred approach, dignity and respect and safety. (CQC, 2017)The
resident felt that she wasn’t being provided with the care she needed which
consequently meant that the staff have not met their duties.
In case study 4, the staff did not report or take note of the incident about a
service user who had a seizure due to not administrating medication on time.
They have failed to abide by the RIDDOR law which requires employers and
other people in charge of work premises to report and keep records of work
related accidents. (HSE, 2020)The staff would need to ensure that the person
who is delivering the medication should be registered and trained to prevent
accidents from happening. For instance, giving the wrong dosage or incorrect
type of medication.
P7-
In case study 3,the staff did not maintain the health and safety of the residents
as they didn’t take quick action to fix the garden gate that was broken meaning
the disorientated residents with dementia would get lost easily. They have not
followed the whistle blowing procedure as the workers did not immediately
report the safety conditions of the residence putting peoples’ lives at risk.
Page 1 of 5
, In case study 4 the staff at the centre administrated medication without being
trained and didn’t follow the procedure to keep a record of the medication
being given and any incidents that have taken place. They would need to
improve their complaints procedure as it is not suitable to some people
because the form is online and individuals with learning disabilities would
unable to make a complaint. Their customer service would also need to
improve because they were not helpful in assisting people with the complaint
procedure.
P8-
The health and safety responsibilities for employers are to protect the health,
safety and welfare of their employees and other people who might be affected
by their service. By making sure that workers and others are protected from
anything that may cause harm. (HSE, 2020) In case study 3 the staff did not
protect the safety of their residents as the garden gate was broken which led
to residents getting lost. . The manager could conduct a risk assessment as it
ensures the workplace health and safety policy is up to date this will prepare
them of any hazards that they may encounter. In case study 4 the staff would
need to make sure that the people who distribute the medication are trained
and are registered to maintain the health and safety of the service users. They
would also need to keep a record of accidents that happen and immediately
take action to resolve the issue.
M3
If case study 3 followed the health and safety at work legislation they can
protect service users from harm which is promoting safe practice. They would
need to act in quickly to resolve the safety issue regarding the broken garden
gate to prevent the residents escaping and getting lost. The care act 2014
prevents vulnerable adults from mistreatment and improving their quality of
life. This act encourages caregivers to take a centred approach when
safeguarding vulnerable adults (highspeedtraining, 2019). The staff in case
study 3 have not fully complied with the care act 2014 because Elise felt as if
she wasn’t being treated fairly and that she was being taken advantaged of
because of her dementia. The staff did not help her look for the missing items.
Page 2 of 5
Task 2
P6-
In the Firs residence case study, there was a breach of the health and safety at
work legislation as it states that employers must protect the health, safety and
welfare at work of all their residents. (worksmart, 2021)
The employees at the residence have failed to do this as the garden gate was
broken which put vulnerable adults with dementia at risk of going missing. The
employees in case study 3 have also failed to meet the care act 2014 which
aims to prevent vulnerable individuals from mistreatment and improve their
quality of life. (training, 2019) For example, Elise has complained about her
items missing however, the staff assumed that she was hiding the items and
didn’t help her look for them. This made Elise feel distressed and taken
advantage of. The fundamental standards of CQC include being treated with a
person centred approach, dignity and respect and safety. (CQC, 2017)The
resident felt that she wasn’t being provided with the care she needed which
consequently meant that the staff have not met their duties.
In case study 4, the staff did not report or take note of the incident about a
service user who had a seizure due to not administrating medication on time.
They have failed to abide by the RIDDOR law which requires employers and
other people in charge of work premises to report and keep records of work
related accidents. (HSE, 2020)The staff would need to ensure that the person
who is delivering the medication should be registered and trained to prevent
accidents from happening. For instance, giving the wrong dosage or incorrect
type of medication.
P7-
In case study 3,the staff did not maintain the health and safety of the residents
as they didn’t take quick action to fix the garden gate that was broken meaning
the disorientated residents with dementia would get lost easily. They have not
followed the whistle blowing procedure as the workers did not immediately
report the safety conditions of the residence putting peoples’ lives at risk.
Page 1 of 5
, In case study 4 the staff at the centre administrated medication without being
trained and didn’t follow the procedure to keep a record of the medication
being given and any incidents that have taken place. They would need to
improve their complaints procedure as it is not suitable to some people
because the form is online and individuals with learning disabilities would
unable to make a complaint. Their customer service would also need to
improve because they were not helpful in assisting people with the complaint
procedure.
P8-
The health and safety responsibilities for employers are to protect the health,
safety and welfare of their employees and other people who might be affected
by their service. By making sure that workers and others are protected from
anything that may cause harm. (HSE, 2020) In case study 3 the staff did not
protect the safety of their residents as the garden gate was broken which led
to residents getting lost. . The manager could conduct a risk assessment as it
ensures the workplace health and safety policy is up to date this will prepare
them of any hazards that they may encounter. In case study 4 the staff would
need to make sure that the people who distribute the medication are trained
and are registered to maintain the health and safety of the service users. They
would also need to keep a record of accidents that happen and immediately
take action to resolve the issue.
M3
If case study 3 followed the health and safety at work legislation they can
protect service users from harm which is promoting safe practice. They would
need to act in quickly to resolve the safety issue regarding the broken garden
gate to prevent the residents escaping and getting lost. The care act 2014
prevents vulnerable adults from mistreatment and improving their quality of
life. This act encourages caregivers to take a centred approach when
safeguarding vulnerable adults (highspeedtraining, 2019). The staff in case
study 3 have not fully complied with the care act 2014 because Elise felt as if
she wasn’t being treated fairly and that she was being taken advantaged of
because of her dementia. The staff did not help her look for the missing items.
Page 2 of 5
