You are here

Dimensions 2 Buckby Lane Good

The provider of this service changed - see old profile

All reports

Inspection report

Date of Inspection: 18 September 2013
Date of Publication: 19 October 2013
Inspection Report published 19 October 2013 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 18 September 2013, observed how people were being cared for and checked how people were cared for at each stage of their treatment and care. We talked with people who use the service, talked with staff and reviewed information given to us by the provider.

Our judgement

People were cared for, or supported by, suitably qualified, skilled and experienced staff. However, there was insufficient available evidence of the required recruitment checks having been completed.

Reasons for our judgement

It was not clear from available records that effective and consistent recruitment and selection processes were in place and documented.

The staff files we examined did not all contain evidence of the required pre-employment checks. For example, the file for two recently recruited members of staff contained no evidence of the ‘Disclosure and Barring Service’ (DBS) check of any previous criminal record. In one person’s file, there was also no evidence or confirmation of references having been obtained, nor of the documents seen to confirm identity. Another employee’s file contained copies of these documents, apart from the DBS check. One person’s file did contain the required evidence of recruitment checks. Following the inspection, the provider supplied evidence of the completion of DBS checks on all permanent staff. We found that the organisations’ employment record form had not been completed on all files and the induction record was not always fully completed.

There was no written evidence of appropriate checks having been carried out by the employing agency, in the case of agency staff. There were no records of any induction having been provided, for two of the agency staff. Staff told us that verification of agency staff was carried out over the phone.

The provider’s compliance audit in August 2013 did not address these shortfalls.