You are here

Archived: Staffordshire Shared Care

All reports

Inspection report

Date of Inspection: 30 January 2013
Date of Publication: 1 March 2013
Inspection Report published 1 March 2013 PDF | 79.78 KB

The service should have quality checking systems to manage risks and assure the health, welfare and safety of people who receive care (outcome 16)

Meeting this standard

We checked that people who use this service

  • Benefit from safe quality care, treatment and support, due to effective decision making and the management of risks to their health, welfare and safety.

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 30 January 2013, checked how people were cared for at each stage of their treatment and care and talked with carers and / or family members. We talked with staff.

Our judgement

The provider had an effective system to regularly assess and monitor the quality of service that people receive.

Reasons for our judgement

When we visited the service we met the Children’s Services Manager who had line management responsibility for the registered manager of the sitting service. She told us that she held responsibility for monitoring the quality of the services provided by Action for Children in Lichfield, including the sitting service. She visited the service at least once each month to support and supervise the registered manager; to complete staff annual appraisals and to review any issues of concern raised about or by the children and young people who used the service.

We spoke with the registered manager who told us she conducted the supervision sessions for support workers. She completed assessments and reviewed the support workers’ assessments of children’s ongoing needs. In particular she reviewed with them the decision recorded in the Casefile Supervision Decision record which stated whether or not there were any safeguarding concerns about a child. We saw records of these supervision sessions.

Staff recruitment was undertaken centrally by Action for Children. We were told that each new member of staff had a criminal records bureau (CRB) check and two references were followed up before a decision to appoint was made. Candidates for employment were required to declare whether any other person in their household had been disqualified from working with children. The Children’s Services manager checked and reviewed all the employment checks before support workers started work.

Families had opportunities to provide feedback about the service they received through regular review meetings. In addition, we saw that the information pack given to every family that used the service, included a leaflet about how to complain about the service. Information about making a complaint was also included in the leaflet designed to be read by children and young people.

Overall, the systems for assessing and monitoring the service were robust which meant that children received maximum protection against the risks of unsafe care.