You are here

Archived: The Oaks Nursing Home

All reports

Inspection report

Date of Inspection: 30 April 2012
Date of Publication: 25 July 2012
Inspection Report published 25 July 2012 PDF

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

Not met 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

Our judgement

The provider was not meeting this Regulation.

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

User experience

We observed people who lived at the service but our evidence from these observations did not relate to this standard or regulation.

A relative we spoke with told us that there had been a lot of changes in staff. She said that there had been some staff who did not work as hard as others but said this had improved. She said she had some concerns about people's ability to understand some of the staff.

Other evidence

We set a compliance action in this outcome area following our last inspection on 21 March 2012. We wanted to check whether improvements had been made.

When we looked at seven staff files we found there had not been any supervision undertaken on staff since our last visit, but we saw that the providers were in the middle of doing appraisals with all of the staff.

Following our last inspection, we were concerned about the competence of the nursing staff at the home. We were once again concerned about the approach, attitude and skills of the nurse we observed. We were concerned that this person had only had clinical supervision twice; the last time in February 2012 and this had not raised any concerns about their performance.

We spoke with the providers about the conduct of this member of staff and they informed us they had their own concerns but had no alternative but to use the member of staff as they had a small pool of qualified staff available. There was no evidence that they had raised these concerns with the staff member. There was no evidence that they had been monitoring the person's performance. This evidence showed the supervision process was not frequent or robust and had not included any observation of practice.