You are here

Archived: Monet Lodge

This service is now registered at a different address - see new profile

All reports

Inspection report

Date of Inspection: 7 June 2013
Date of Publication: 13 June 2013
Inspection Report published 13 June 2013 PDF | 68.25 KB

Staff should be properly trained and supervised, and have the chance to develop and improve their skills (outcome 14)

Meeting this standard

We checked that people who use this service

  • Are safe and their health and welfare needs are met by competent staff.

How this check was done

We looked at the personal care or treatment records of people who use the service, carried out a visit on 7 June 2013 and talked with staff.

Our judgement

People were cared for by staff who were supported to deliver care and treatment safely and to an appropriate standard.

Reasons for our judgement

When we visited in December 2012, we found that the provider needed to improve their processes to ensure that staff received appropriate supervision. As this was a hospital for people with dementia who presented with challenging behaviour, we felt that people were not receiving appropriate supervision to enable staff to raise any issues and to safeguard high standards of care. We judged that this had a minor impact on people using the service and issued a compliance action.

The provider sent an action plan telling us how they were going to improve their processes to ensure that appropriate supervision occurred and was recorded.

On this visit, we checked that the provider had taken the action necessary. We did not speak with any service users on this visit.

We examined the personnel files of six members of staff; three files relating to health care assistants and three relating to nurses. We saw evidence that there was a system of training in place especially for new recruits. The staff members who were interviewed stated that they felt very well supported in their training and career development.

Nursing staff were able to undertake training to meet their professional requirements which was a condition of their ability to continue to work as nurses.

We considered that the provision of training was appropriate.

On all the files we saw that there were records of several appropriate recent management supervision sessions.

We spoke with three members of staff who stated that they received regular supervision from the registered manager or the clinical lead. We spoke with one new member of staff who felt well supported.

The registered manager produced a supervision schedule showing that all members of staff had received recent supervision either by the registered manager, by the clinical lead or by other members of nursing staff. The schedule reflected the company requirement that people should receive formal supervision every eight weeks. In most cases, this was being met or exceeded.

The registered manager had also introduced supervision files for each employee to help ensure that supervision took place regularly, that it was recorded and that the records were filed appropriately.

We saw that where people were newly employed, people would receive formal supervision more frequently as part of a probationary period review process. We saw that where there were issues that required monitoring, people would receive formal supervision, issues requiring improvement were discussed and action taken if significant issues were highlighted.

We saw that people had received an annual appraisal or there were plans to ensure that these were carried out.