You are here

Archived: Rushall Care Centre

The provider of this service changed - see old profile

All reports

Inspection report

Date of Inspection: 5 June 2014
Date of Publication: 19 July 2014
Inspection Report published 19 July 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 5 June 2014, observed how people were being cared for and talked with people who use the service. We talked with carers and / or family members, talked with staff, reviewed information sent to us by other authorities and talked with other authorities.

Our judgement

People were cared for, or supported by, suitably qualified, skilled and experienced staff.

Appropriate checks were not consistently reviewed for staff.

Reasons for our judgement

We looked at three staff records on the day of our inspection. We saw evidence that checks had been made to ensure people recruited were of good character. We found that checks were not consistently reviewed in the staff files we looked at.

All of the staff files we looked at contained two references for each member of staff, which was intended to ensure that people recruited were of good character.

Providers must ensure that staff are suitable to work with vulnerable adults. One check used to be called the criminal records bureau check (CRB) and was changed to the disclosure and barring service (DBS) check.

In the staff files we looked at we saw that the provider completed DBS checks for these staff members before they started working in line with legislation.

In one of the staff records we looked at we saw the DBS check had not been reviewed since October 2004. There was no evidence that the staff member had signed a self-disclosure form to demonstrate that they had no criminal convictions since the last DBS was completed. In a second file we found that a self-disclosure form had been completed in November 2013. For a third person a new DBS had been obtained subsequent to safeguarding concerns about their conduct.

We could not find an internal policy which identified how frequently staff DBS checks should be carried out by the provider to ensure people were of good character. The policy stated that ‘the frequency of renewal will be at the company’s discretion or as required by regulation’.

We saw that the provider had undertaken specific DBS checks for staff after safeguarding investigations into allegations of staff misconduct. We saw that risk assessments had been put in place subsequent to checks undertaken. We found that DBS checks had not been routinely reviewed for all staff.

The manager told us they had reviewed all staff records since they had started in role. They told us they would use this to inform how to develop staff and inform performance management if appropriate. They told us that as part of recent staff disciplinary investigations, individual staff had been set outcomes they needed to achieve to improve their job performance. This was confirmed in the staff records we looked at. The manager told us they would regularly review the performance of staff against set outcomes to ensure that they were fit for their role. We will check this at our next inspection.

We found that health checks had been completed for staff before they started working at the home. We found full employment histories for staff in the records that we looked at. We could not find interview notes in the staff records we looked at. This meant that it was not clear whether staff had taken part in an interview before starting their role.

We were told that staff completed an induction training course before they started work. We were told that a recently recruited staff member had undertaken induction training to familiarise themselves with internal policies and procedures. We looked at the staff file for them and we could not find evidence that they had completed the induction training. From talking to this staff member they told us they had completed an induction course before starting their role.

They told us: “I was given an orientation to the home. I shadowed other staff. I had supervision recently and can talk to the nurse if I have any issues”. We saw that the new member of staff had only received one formal supervision session since starting in role six months previously. We saw that the member of staff had not received a review of their probationary period. The manager told us they expected all new staff to receive regular supervision sessions when newly recruited to role. They acknowledged that the person required a probationary review as this was overdue.

All of the staff we spoke with told us they felt supported by the manager and could talk to them about any problems they had.

After the inspection the manager told