You are here

Archived: Michael House

All reports

Inspection report

Date of Inspection: 5 February 2013
Date of Publication: 27 February 2013
Inspection Report published 27 February 2013 PDF

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

Meeting 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 5 February 2013, observed how people were being cared for and talked with people who use the service. We talked with staff.

Our judgement

People were cared for by staff who were supported to deliver care and treatment safely and to an appropriate standard.

Reasons for our judgement

Staff received appropriate professional development. The service had a comprehensive system of staff supervision and appraisal. We saw records that showed staff received supervisions from senior staff every four to six weeks. All permanent staff also took part in an employee centred review. As part of this appraisal process they met with their line manager three times a year. Staff we spoke with told us about the supervision process. “We have supervision from the senior in the house we work at the most.” Another said: “I have a sheet in my tray that I use to make notes of any issues or concerns and then it is ready to discuss at my supervision.”

We looked at staff training records. The provider had identified subjects that they had decided staff should complete annually, for example safeguarding vulnerable adults and manual handling. Other subjects had been identified as requiring three yearly updates. The service had recently separated the training records of their support staff from other employees which they told us meant it was proving easier to identify individual training needs. A traffic light system had been introduced which provided a visual prompt for organising required training updates. All new staff had undergone induction and had completed relevant training for their role. However we saw that there were a number of training updates required in a number of areas for some staff. These shortfalls had been identified by the provider and we were given dates for the training that had been arranged. These were all due to take place before the end of March 2013. We spoke with staff who told us that they had taken part in a range of training courses and were aware that more were due to take place. One personal assistant said: “I’ve had so many courses.” Another relatively new personal assistant told us about their induction. “I shadowed for two weeks and had a three month probation with a twelve week review.” They went on to say they felt supported by senior staff and that they could discuss any issues at any time with senior staff.

Staff were able, from time to time, to obtain further relevant qualifications. From the provider's training record we saw that people had taken part in other relevant training. In one instance training had been organised for a group of staff to enable them to provide support for a person who had a percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) feeding tube. The domestic and catering manager had recently completed training and assessment for a qualification in infection control. This had enabled them to become the lead for infection control for all of the provider’s care homes.