You are here

Archived: Joint Community Rehabilitation Service

This service was previously registered at a different address - see old profile

All reports

Inspection report

Date of Inspection: 18 December 2013
Date of Publication: 29 January 2014
Inspection Report published 29 January 2014 PDF

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 18 December 2013, observed how people were being cared for and talked with people who use the service. We talked with carers and / or family members and talked with staff.

We were supported on this inspection by an expert-by-experience. This is a person who has personal experience of using or caring for someone who uses this type of care service.

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

Staff received appropriate professional development. We found that staff received regular supervision. We spoke with one member of staff who told us, “I receive supervision every two months or so. It’s also a chance to sit down and talk about problems or worries. The supervision itself is good. I get valuable feedback from my senior about how I’m doing based on monitoring visits and observation of my work with clients.” All care workers received regular supervision. We saw supervision records in staff files that confirmed this. We looked at the supervision template used with workers. It enabled discussion of both practice-based issues such as care plans and incident reporting and topics relevant to individual support workers such as annual leave and goal setting. We saw examples that were comprehensively completed. Staff told us they felt they were kept informed through supervision.

We saw copies of the minutes from team meetings. Because of the multi professional structure of the team, different meetings were held. For example, we found whole team meetings were held monthly, as were meetings for senior support workers. Occupational and physiotherapists attached to the team also had their own meetings. Support workers attended meetings as part of their duty time. The agenda addressed a wide variety of topics which included practice based issues such as nutrition, safeguarding, health and safety. We found a client centred focus to meetings which fitted with the ethos expressed to us during our visit. We were told by a care worker, “I get a copy of the meeting minutes posted to me with my timesheets and I’m really interested to receive them. It’s very much centred on clients and staff issues and I find them useful.”

We saw that staff participated in a yearly appraisal. Appraisals addressed individual professional development and included staff training needs, demands of the role, aspirations and levels of satisfaction. This meant that the provider ensured that people employed by the service received appropriate professional development, supervision and appraisal appropriate to the work they performed.

We were told by support workers that management had an open door policy which encouraged them to feel supported. One person told us, “The manager is approachable, their door is always open and we can discuss any concerns we have." The members of staff we spoke with were aware of the whistle blowing policy and one told us, "I would not hesitate in talking to the manager straight away if I have any concerns". This showed that there was a culture evident in the service which allowed staff to feel supported to raise concerns without fear of recrimination.

We saw noticeboards located around the office for the Joint Community Rehabilitation Service where news and information was displayed for staff to see. The information was up-to-date and relevant to the service and staff.

We found that appropriate training was available to staff. Staff told us that comprehensive training was made available to them and we saw evidence in the records that all mandatory staff training was currently up to date and on-going. We saw that refresher training was scheduled and completed. Though the provider may find it useful to note that in the hard copy of the training matrix we saw, only six staff had completed either the workbook or classroom based training for equality and diversity. A support worker said, "The training is good. There’s lots of it as well as refreshers on various topics." This meant that the provider ensured there were staff with the right competencies, knowledge, qualifications, skills and experience to meet people's needs.