You are here

All reports

Inspection report

Date of Inspection: 6 September 2012
Date of Publication: 4 October 2012
Inspection Report published 4 October 2012 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 6 September 2012, 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 supported to deliver care and treatment safely and to an appropriate standard.

Reasons for our judgement

Staff were able, from time to time, to obtain further relevant qualifications. We found that York House had in place a mandatory and optional training programme. We reviewed the training records and saw that the majority of staff had completed their mandatory training. We also found that York House operated a system which monitored training to ensure staff attended relevant courses and training updates. We spoke to four members of staff who confirmed that they felt appropriately trained to carry out their role and confirmed that if they felt they lacked training in a particular area this could be requested by their manager.

Optional training included courses to help meet peoples’ specific needs for example, training on diabetes and pressure sore management. On reviewing the training records for these optional courses we were able to see that a selection of staff had been trained in each of these areas.

Staff received appropriate professional development. We found that a programme of formal supervision and appraisal was in place for permanent members of staff. We found that staff were able to access various forms of supervision which included one to one sessions, group supervision and observation. We also saw that staff had access to meeting with the provider and were encouraged to feedback any concerns that they may have. We spoke to four members of staff who confirmed that generally they felt supported from their immediate line manager. However, the provider may find it useful to note that some feedback received told us that, on occasion, staff did not feel supported by more senior management in the provider company.