INFORMATION MANAGEMENT & TECHNOLOGY

Information Governance Department

Salford Royal NHS Foundation Trust

Turnpike House,

631 Eccles New Road,

Salford M50 1SW

Sam Rahmani

ef: CAMS-012-33637467-2

8th August 2016

SUBJECT: Freedom of Information Request
Dear Mr Rahmani

I am writing in response to your Freedom of Information request of 11th July 2016. With effect from 1st July 2016 the majority of Adult Social Care Services are delivered by Salford Royal NHS Foundation Trust (SRFT). This response and any associated information is provided by Salford City Council for the Trust.

Freedom of Information request - Laburnum Court Care Home 8 Priory Grove, off Lower Broughton, Salford M7 2HT

Would you please provide:

1) Number of Safeguarding alerts/concerns received from or in connection with the above named home from all sources (the home itself, family, hospital, etc)

2) Number of Investigations conducted in response to safeguarding alerts, complaints, allegations of abuse, etc.

3) Outcome of the investigations conducted. (e.g. substantiated, not substantiated, partially substantiated, etc.)

5) Number of Incidents reported to or investigated by the police, again not necessarily related to safeguarding concerns.

The council can confirm that it holds information in respect of your request. However, this is considered to be exempt from release under section 43 (2) of the Act. This provides an exemption in respect of information where its disclosure would prejudice the commercial interests of any person. In this regard, the council would draw your attention to the Information Commissioner’s Decision in the case FS50579169 – Herefordshire Council. This recent decision (February 2016) concerned a Freedom of Information request made for very similar information to that requested here and, of particular note, the ICO agreed with the council’s position that details of specific safeguarding concerns/investigations were exempt from release under section 43(2) due to the reputational damage and subsequent financial loss likely to be suffered by the care home as a consequence of disclosure and 40(2) (personal information) on the basis that disclosure of the requested information would risk identifying individual residents and the individuals who had raised the complaints/concerns.

The full decision is available at the following link but the council would, in particular, refer you to paragraphs 21-35. The council would seek to broadly advance the same arguments. To disclose figures alone may give a misleading impression of the standard of a care home for instance andresult in people deciding not to use their services. At the same time, the council is unable to provide information regarding thecontext of specific investigations/concerns as this would be exempt information under section 40(2) dueto the risk of identifying individuals. In respect of the public interest test, the council recognises that there is a substantial public interest in public awareness of matters such as quality of care. However, as in the above mentioned decision, the council would argue that, in view of the existing regulatory framework and the role of the CQC etc, the balance of the public interest would favour withholding the information on the basis that the reputational and commercial damage that could be caused to individual homes would be disproportionate when weighed against the usefulness of such information to the public.

Although the council is unable to provide the specific information requested in this instance, overall figures can be provided to show the total number of safeguarding investigations across all care homes in Salford along with the number which were substantiated if this is information which you would wish to receive.

4) Number of Deaths (for any reason, expected or otherwise) of any person who used the care service

2014 / 20
2015 / 16
2016 / 16

6) Number of Pressure Ulcers of any grade reported by the provider or external medical staff or family, etc.

As you may be aware, under section 12(1) of the FOIA, public authorities are not obliged to comply with requests for information if they estimate that the cost of complying with the request would exceed the ‘appropriate limit’. The Freedom of Information and Data Protection (Appropriate Limit and Fees) Regulations 2004 set an ‘appropriate limit’ of £450 for public authorities, which equates to 18 hours work at a statutory rate of £25 per hour. Although there may be reference within the files of specific individuals experiencing an ulcer, the council does not record or collate information regarding ‘ulcer incidents’. We estimate that it would take considerably longer to retrieve this information than the time limit set out in the Act.

7) Number of complaints received by anyone and by any route (phone, email, in person, letter, etc) in connection with this home.

The Council has received no complaints in connection with this home.

Please provide these figures in the following way:

Breakdown of the above for years 2014, 2015 for full year; and for 2016 between January and June. If any of the numbers are fewer than 5 for certain years, and you would therefore be unable to disclose them, please feel free to add the numbers for different years together and provide the total number.

Your request is now considered fulfilled. If you are dissatisfied with the way your request has been handled, or wish to appeal this decision, you may wish to reply direct to this email. Your appeal review will be overseen by a senior officer.

Further details of how to lodge an appeal can be found at

If you are still dissatisfied following any internal appeal, you may wish to contact the Information Commissioner's Office, Wycliffe House, Water Lane, Wilmslow, Cheshire SK9 5AF - Tel: 0303 123 1113 (local rate) or 01625 545 745

Yours sincerely

Carolyn Haslam

Principal Information Governance Officer

Legal & Governance Division

Corporate Business

Salford City Council
Civic Centre, Chorley Road,

Swinton M27 5AW