You are here

All reports

Inspection report

Date of Inspection: 14 January 2014
Date of Publication: 21 February 2014
Inspection Report published 21 February 2014 PDF

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

Not met 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 14 January 2014, observed how people were being cared for and sent a questionnaire to people who use the service. We talked with staff.

Our judgement

People were not cared for by staff who were supported to deliver care and treatment safely and to an appropriate standard.

The provider did not meet:

Regulation 21(b) Schedule 3

Reasons for our judgement

The provider did not have a robust recruitment and selection process in place. We were unable to access staff records as they had been stored off site and were not accessible at the time of the visit.

We asked people who used the service if they had any concerns that the staff may not be properly qualified. All of the people told us they did not have any concerns.

The manager told us that the majority of staff employed were family members or friends known by the family, therefore all of the recruitment was made by ‘word of mouth’. This meant that there were not suitable arrangements in place to verify the suitability of staff.

The staff we spoke with confirmed they had provided a Curriculum Vitae or that they were a family member of the provider. The manager told us that he would not interview anyone who had a long gap in their employment, as they would not be up to date with current practices. A member of staff confirmed that they had been asked to provide photographic proof of identification for example a passport or driver’s licence, as well as certificates and qualifications. This meant that the provider had checked that people were who they said they were and that they were appropriately trained.

The manager informed us that as staff were either family members or were known through the family, references had not been taken up. This meant that whilst there were some arrangements in place to check that a person was of good character and suitably qualified, people who used the service were not fully protected as the provider had not obtained all the information set down in the regulations for each staff member.

The manager informed us that only the clinical staff (doctors and nurses) had completed criminal record checks (CRB or Disclosure and Barring Service check ) which were conducted by the NHS. Other staff had not been checked. This meant that not all staff who provided the regulated activity had undergone a Disclosure and Barring Service check . This meant it was not known if they had a criminal record that may have made them unsuitable to work with vulnerable people. The manager agreed that they would ensure that all staff would undergo a Disclosure and Barring Service check .

During the visit we asked the manager to provide a list of the contents of the staff files to ascertain what information had been recorded. We were told that this information would not be accessible until 27 January 2014. This meant that the provider could not produce or verify information required to be compliant with the regulations.

The manager informed us that they checked the clinical staff’s professional registration and that clinical staff had their own indemnity insurance. This meant that people were cared for, or supported by, suitably qualified, skilled and experienced staff.