You are here

Archived: The Old Rectory Inadequate

All reports

Inspection report

Date of Inspection: 26, 27 June 2014
Date of Publication: 9 August 2014
Inspection Report published 09 August 2014 PDF

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 looked at the personal care or treatment records of people who use the service, carried out a visit on 26 June 2014 and 27 June 2014, observed how people were being cared for and talked with people who use the service. We talked with carers and / or family members, talked with staff, reviewed information given to us by the provider and reviewed information sent to us by other authorities. We talked with other authorities.

We used the Short Observational Framework for Inspection (SOFI). SOFI is a specific way of observing care to help us understand the experience of people who could not talk with us.

Our judgement

People were not cared for by staff who were supported to deliver care and support safely and to an appropriate standard through development.

Reasons for our judgement

Staff were supported through training, supervision and appraisal to deliver care safely to people using the service. Staff did not receive further development.

The provider had an induction policy in place that required new staff to complete an induction. Staff told us that the Skills for Care induction was used. Skills for Care publish guidance on recognised standards for induction into the care sector. Staff training records showed the date that this had been completed; however, we only saw two “certificates of successful completion” in the seven files we checked. We asked the deputy manager if they were able to show us the content of the completed inductions and were told that “staff take them home when they have done it” so the records were unavailable for us to verify.

Staff told us that new staff shadowed experienced staff to begin with to enable them to get to know the people using the service and the routines of the home. Our observations showed that staff knew people and their routines well.

Staff we spoke with, the deputy manager and head of care told us that staff had completed mandatory training. However the training records were not up to date with at least six members of staff not recorded on the training matrix.

Staff training records showed what courses had been completed and when refresher training was due. Training certificates had been issued by different training companies but had not been filed in people’s employment files. Most staff had completed basic mandatory training courses in subjects, such as, safeguarding vulnerable adults, moving and handling, first aid and fire awareness. Staff told us that they had undergone training on nail care and care plans showed that staff were carrying this out. However there were no records to support this. We did note that people’s nails appeared well maintained. Some staff had received additional specialist training which helped them do their jobs in subjects including sexual health and learning disability, challenging behaviour and mental health but there was no recent training in any of these subjects. This meant that staff may not have had an appropriate level of knowledge, competencies and experience to meet the changing needs of people using the service.

The service had a “Staff Appraisal Policy” in place which stated that appraisals would take place annually. This was also stated in staff’s job descriptions. We found that appraisals had been completed in March 2014 and signed by both the employer and the employee. Part of the appraisal form was a tick box section for completion by both parties in order to compare them. None of the forms we sampled had been completed by staff so staff had not given their views or opinions of their own performance. This was not in line with the policy which read, “The appraisal makes use of reports from the job holder based on a self-assessment of their progress in their work”.

Staff we spoke with said that they had appraisals and that they felt supported. The appraisals noted what had been achieved and set new agreed targets and performance objectives. We noted that these were sometimes brief, generic and did not encourage personal learning development. For example, one stated, “To continue training” and another said, “To continue to provide a high level of care and complete training”. This meant that there was a risk that staff may not be being supported to assess and develop their skills and experience fully.

We found that the service provided regular supervision, on a three monthly basis, in accordance with their policy. Copies of the staff supervisions were held in staff employment record files and these were generally signed by both the supervisor and the employee. Supervisions were based on observations of either “Mealtime & Promoting Independence” or “Personal Hygiene & Promoting Independence”. Part of the supervision was a tick box for the observation and part was for discussio