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

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

Not met 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 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 systems in place for supervision need further development. The planning and monitoring of training needs to improve to ensure training needs are kept up to date and reflect the needs of the service.

User experience

People that were using the service did not give us any feedback regarding this outcome area.

Other evidence

We were told by a senior manager at the clinic that under the previous registered manager staff training had not been coordinated but that these issues were now being addressed. The registered manager told us that it had been identified that some staff at the clinic had not completed some of the training they needed to undertake their role effectively. During our visit, we found that a written analysis of staff training needs had not been completed but actions were in progress to improve the training arrangements for nursing staff. Training had recently been completed by some nursing staff in areas such as infection control procedures, scanning, safeguarding, manual handling and resuscitation. We were told that further staff training was being planned, for example in the Mental Capacity Act.

The scope of training provided did not always reflect the needs of the service being provided. We also found no written evidence of planning to meet the needs of medical staff working at the clinic. We found no evidence that training on the implications of the Abortion Act and the expected standard of practice was taking place. The clinic was monitoring to ensure that medical skills and competencies matched the scope of services being provided. For example, following changes in medical staff working at the clinic and a loss of skills in managing later term pregnancies, the clinic stopped receiving women over 16 weeks pregnant. They made arrangements with other clinics to ensure that women over this gestation could access local services quickly.

The nursing staff we spoke with during our visit to the clinic all told us that they were satisfied with the training arrangements. A member of staff told us ‘’The new manager is getting more staff to do training, for example scanning. The new management have really improved training. Staff are only ever asked to do tasks they are trained to do.’’

One of the nurses told us ‘’The new manager Is making changes, she’s looked at all our files to see what training is needed, and is introducing competencies for everyone as not everyone had these before. ‘’ Another nurse told us that they had recently started working on achieving the competencies for their role. The registered manager told us that it had also been identified that some staff had previously not completed a satisfactory induction to the clinic. We were told that it was planned for these staff to undertake the clinic’s induction.

Staff told us that they always received an annual appraisal. We asked to look at staff supervision records. From the records sampled, we identified that nursing staff did not receive individual supervisions as frequently as they should. Minutes of a recent staff meeting showed that this had been identified as an issue and it was planned for more supervisions to take place. We found that supervision sessions for doctors had not previously taken place but sessions had been scheduled to take place with the medical director of the clinic.

Suitable plans were also not in place for the ongoing supervision and support of the registered manager. We were told that some management supervision took place but there no formal system for clinical supervision had been put in place.

Records showed that staff meetings were held on a regular basis to discuss issues of practice. Discussions with nursing staff told us that the registered manager often had informal discussions with them to see how they were. The registered manager told us that these discussions were not recorded.