You are here

Archived: Teeside CSS - Middlesborough

All reports

Inspection report

Date of Inspection: 30 December 2013
Date of Publication: 25 January 2014
Inspection Report published 25 January 2014 PDF

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

Meeting 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 looked at the personal care or treatment records of people who use the service, carried out a visit on 30 December 2013, talked with people who use the service and talked with carers and / or family members. We talked with staff.

Our judgement

People were cared for, or supported by, suitably qualified, skilled and experienced staff.

Reasons for our judgement

As part of our inspection we looked at the recruitment records of six members of staff. The administration of the recruitment process was managed by the head office of the provider however copies of the relevant records were kept by the manager.

We also spoke with the manager and another member of staff about the recruitment process used by Royal Mencap Society. They told us that people who used the service were involved in the process. For example, they were involved in setting interview questions, attending interviews and also attending open days for short listed staff. This meant that people who used the service had the opportunity to influence the recruitment of support staff who they felt comfortable with. There were effective recruitment and selection processes in place.

Within the recruitment records we saw that there were application forms for each member of staff as well as evidence of interviews and two references being sought. The provider may find it useful to note that one applicant had given their partner as a referee. We were unable to find evidence that the provider had sought a third reference and therefore only had one independent reference for that person. On the whole however, appropriate checks were undertaken before staff began work.

We found that Disclosure and Barring (DBS, formerly known as criminal records bureau checks) had been carried out to ensure that people were suitable to work with vulnerable adults. Where DBS checks highlighted issues, there was evidence that the provider had followed these up with more in depth interviews with applicants to ensure that previous convictions no longer posed risks to people who used the service. This showed that people employed by the service underwent a robust recruitment process and the provider had ensured that staff had the appropriate skills and experience to work with vulnerable people.