You are here

All reports

Inspection report

Date of Inspection: 7 January 2013
Date of Publication: 9 February 2013
Inspection Report published 9 February 2013 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 7 January 2013, observed how people were being cared for and checked how people were cared for at each stage of their treatment and care. We talked with people who use the service, talked with carers and / or family members and talked with staff.

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 cared for by staff who were not supported to deliver care and treatment safely and to an appropriate standard because their competency was not assessed or recorded.

Reasons for our judgement

People told us that they thought staff were well trained.

One member of staff told us that they found supervision good because “You can say if anything bothers you”.

We reviewed the records of three members of staff. There was evidence in the staff records that all staff received regular supervision. Staff received formal supervision in the form of a meeting, however there was no evidence of management spot checks of staff competency when performing their role were undertaken. Supervision was recorded and focused on areas for development. There was evidence of appraisals. Appraisals focused on staff learning, development and training needs.

Staff who gave medicines to people had received appropriate training, however their competency to handle medicines had not been assessed. We were told by the deputy manager that, following a medicine error, the member of staff received supervision. We reviewed the supervision records. We saw that the member of staff was shadowed during a medicine round and the error was discussed, however there was no mention of additional supervision, training, or a competency assessment to minimise the risk or the error happening again. Current guidelines from the Royal Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain published in 2007 state that “In social care settings, people who are unable to manage their own medicines are entitled to have someone who is adequately trained and knowledgeable to give medicines to them. Only staff who have been given appropriate training and have demonstrated they are competent should do this. Care providers are responsible for assessing a care worker’s competence to give medicines to the people they care for. They should not make assumptions based on that care worker’s previous experience.”

The provider did not ensure that all staff were competent, and maintained that competence to administer medicines. The registered manager told us that once staff had undertaken training in medicines they were shadowed by a senior member of staff. There was no formal assessment of competence and there were no records to demonstrate this shadowing had been undertaken. Once staff had been shadowed after completing their initial training, they were not observed undertaking a medicines round and their competence was not assessed.

Training was updated and we saw evidence that the majority of staff were up to date with training such as, emergency first aid, fire, food hygiene, food safety, infection control and moving and handling. Where the need for training had been identified, the provider demonstrated that sessions were booked to ensure that all staff had completed the training.

Staff undertook additional training for qualifications. The provider demonstrated that the majority of care staff had completed a National Vocational Qualification (NVQ) level 2, 3 or 4 or equivalent.