You are here

Archived: Church Green Lodge

The provider of this service changed - see new profile

All reports

Inspection report

Date of Inspection: 22 July 2012
Date of Publication: 28 August 2012
Inspection Report published 28 August 2012 PDF | 55.01 KB

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 reviewed all the information we hold about this provider, carried out a visit on 22/07/2012 and talked to people who use services.

Our judgement

The provider was meeting this standard. People were cared for by staff who were supported to deliver care and treatment safely and to an appropriate standard.

User experience

We reviewed details of the most recent service user feedback survey. In total we reviewed eight completed questionnaires. Each person had agreed that staff were kind to them and that they supported them when they needed help.

We spoke to a person using the service who told us that they, “Get on well with staff” and that they “help me with things I need”.

Other evidence

Staff were able, from time to time, to obtain further relevant qualifications. We found that Church Green Lodge 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 Church Green Lodge operated a system which monitored training to ensure staff attended relevant courses and update training.

Optional training included courses to help meet peoples’ specific needs for example training on challenging behaviour and communication. On reviewing the training records for these optional courses we were able to see that a selection of staff had been trained in each area. The provider may find it useful to note that although we were told that training in relation to people’s medical conditions had taken place, there were no records available to confirm this.

Staff received appropriate professional development. We found that a programme of formal supervision and appraisal was in place for permanent members of staff. However we saw that in recent months some supervision sessions had not been taking place. We were told that this was due to a recent management restructure but that plans were in place to ensure this was addressed. We spoke with two members of staff who confirmed that they felt supported by their managers and felt confident in raising concerns should they need to.