Netlyn Robinson

1. 1. lack of operational alarm system

   “In evidence it became apparent that there was no falls pendant or alarm provided on Mrs [name redacted] return home despite her previously having one when last at home. There appeared to be no process in place to check whether there was a fully operational alarm system in place when needed. Further that Mrs [name redacted] was not consulted about the lack of an alarm until she had arrived home, thus no process in place to provide a person with relevant information in order that they are able to decide”

2. 2. telephone line not connected

   “The telephone line was not connected. There appeared to be no process in place to check that telephones are working and that a vulnerable person has the ability to call for assistance (emergency or otherwise) or communicate with friends/relatives”

3. 3. absence of risk assessment for alarm activation

   “With a lack of alarm or phone line there was still no risk assessment as to how an alarm could be raised”

4. 4. lack of heating and safety checks

   “The heating was not working/turned on and again there appeared to be no process in place to check premises had heating, running water or smoke alarms and therefore was fit and safe for a vulnerable person to return to”

5. 5. lack of risk assessment checklist training

   “The social worker stated he had been trained on the job to risk assess. He had never been shown a check list for the numerous issues that need to be checked prior to allowing a vulnerable person to be returned home”

6. 6. absence of processes to assess premises suitability

   “It was acknowledged that the home was owned by Mrs [name redacted] however there appeared no processes in place to outline what social services would and would not do to ensure that Mrs [name redacted] premises were suitable”

Linked reports