You are here

Archived: SSA Quality Care

This service is now registered at a different address - see new profile

All reports

Inspection report

Date of Inspection: 15 July 2014
Date of Publication: 29 August 2014
Inspection Report published 29 August 2014 PDF | 71.72 KB

Overview

Inspection carried out on 15 July 2014

During an inspection in response to concerns

A single inspector carried out this inspection. The focus of the inspection was to follow up on concerns raised with the Care Quality Commission that some staff had recently been recruited from abroad and were unable to speak English. These concerns also alleged that staff had not had appropriate checks undertaken before they began work and had not received any training to undertake their roles safely.

We visited the service's office to check the records, systems and processes to ensure there was a robust recruitment and selection process in place and people were cared for, or supported by, suitably qualified, skilled and experienced staff. We gathered evidence against the outcomes we inspected to help answer one of our five key questions; Is the service safe?

Below is a summary of what we found. If you want to see the evidence supporting our summary please read our full report.

Is the service safe?

We looked at the personnel files of six staff recruited from abroad. We saw appropriate checks had been undertaken before staff began work. Each staff file contained a recent photograph, proof of identity, Disclosure and Barring checks (DBS) and references. Each staff member had completed an application form, which included a health questionnaire and a summary of previous experiences and qualifications. However, the provider had not gained a written explanation of any gaps in employment where this was evident.

Where English was not staffs' first spoken language, we saw written English tests had been sought and an initial interview had been undertaken over the Internet using a software application known as Skype. This was to ensure their language skills were appropriate to meet the needs of people using the service.

We saw documentation to show staff had been provided with an induction. The induction consisted of five days training which covered the organisation's mandatory subjects. This was then followed by shadowing more experienced carers until staff were competent and felt comfortable and confident to undertake their role alone. We saw documentation to show staffs competencies had been checked and assessed to ensure they provided the care and support safely and in line with the organisations procedures before they worked alone. This ensured people were cared for by staff who were supported to deliver care and treatment safely and to an appropriate standard.

We viewed the organisations staff training matrix which showed all staff were provided with regular refresher courses to ensure their skills and knowledge were kept up to date. We also noted staff were provided with the opportunity to undertake the national vocational qualification in Health and Social Care. This showed staff were provided with the opportunity to obtain further qualifications appropriate to the work they perform.

We looked at a selection of staff files and saw documentation within them which showed they were provided with regular supervisions which included observing their practice and an annual appraisal where they could discuss their work, any area of concern and any developmental needs. This showed staff were supported in their roles and provided with training opportunities to add to their personal development.

These findings demonstrated to us that the service was generally safe but the failure to gain a written explanation of any gaps in employment did not ensure a robust recruitment procedure was in place to protect people using the service.