You are here

Archived: The Calthorpe Clinic

The provider of this service changed - see new profile

All reports

Inspection report

Date of Inspection: 20 January 2012
Date of Publication: 5 April 2012
Inspection Report published 5 April 2012 PDF | 67.17 KB

People should be cared for by staff who are properly qualified and able to do their job (outcome 12)

Not met this standard

We checked that people who use this service

  • Are safe and their health and welfare needs are met by staff who are fit, appropriately qualified and are physically and mentally able to do their job.

How this check was done

We reviewed all the information we hold about this provider, carried out a visit on 20/01/2012, observed how people were being cared for, looked at records of people who use services, talked to staff, reviewed information from stakeholders and talked to people who use services.

Our judgement

The registered provider does not have robust recruitment procedures in place to reduce the risk of unsuitable staff working with people.

User experience

We did not ask people that were using the service for their feedback regarding this outcome area.

Other evidence

We were previously notified by the registered provider of a series of thefts that had occurred. A member of staff was suspended and the clinic subsequently identified that the recruitment procedure for this member of staff had not been robust.

During our visit, we looked at the recruitment records for six members of staff. No new members of staff had been employed since the new registered manager had been in post.

We found that the recruitment checks for three staff were satisfactory. For the other three staff, we found that not all of the required checks had been completed, to help make sure that people were suitable to be providing care and support to people. For a number of staff, criminal records checks previously issued to other employers had been accepted to complete the recruitment checks. There was no assessment of the risks in accepting a check completed for another employer. There was also no evidence that the registered provider had checked that the information presented remained up to date with the previous employer. For one staff, there was no application form, proof of identity and only one written reference. We were told by a senior manager that this was because the staff had been employed via an agency but they accepted that this information should have been available in the staff file.

The registered provider ensured that staff were registered, where appropriate, with their relevant professional body. We found that in all of the staff records we looked at, there was evidence that the appropriate checks had been made with the General Medical Council and the Nursing and Midwifery Council.