You are here

Archived: Marie Stopes International Birmingham

The provider of this service changed - see old profile

All reports

Inspection report

Date of Inspection: 10 December 2013
Date of Publication: 10 January 2014
Inspection Report published 10 January 2014 PDF

There should be enough members of staff to keep people safe and meet their health and welfare needs (outcome 13)

Meeting this standard

We checked that people who use this service

  • Are safe and their health and welfare needs are met by sufficient numbers of appropriate staff.

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 10 December 2013, checked how people were cared for at each stage of their treatment and care and talked with people who use the service. We talked with staff, reviewed information given to us by the provider, were accompanied by a pharmacist and reviewed information sent to us by commissioners of services.

Our judgement

There were enough qualified, skilled and experienced staff to meet people’s needs.

Reasons for our judgement

The staff team consisted of medical, nursing and non clinical staff. The clinic used the services of surgeons and anaesthetists who worked across several Marie Stopes clinics. Since our last inspection there had been some changes to the staffing arrangements with a system of remote access to doctors introduced. Staff spoken with told there were no issues in accessing the remote doctors when needed. Some staff commented that they felt the new system was better for people as it provided better continuity of care. One member of staff told us that the new arrangements meant they were not able to give people as much time as they would like. They told us they did not rush the appointments but that this may result in delays for people.

A rotation system was in place so that nursing staff worked in different areas of the clinic, rather than in one area. The staff rota was colour coded so that each member of staff knew which area they were assigned to. People using the service told us that staff had supported them in a friendly, reassuring and understanding manner. One person told us, “Treated super, great. The staff have been very kind”.

During our visit, we spoke with nursing and medical staff and all had a good understanding of people's care needs. With the exception of one member of staff, they did not raise any concerns with us regarding staffing levels at the clinic. One member of staff told us that staffing levels were satisfactory providing there was no one off work sick. We were informed that when there was staff sickness then one of the senior managers would provide cover. We found this to be the case on the day of our visit as one of the nurses was off work due to sickness. The provider may wish to note that one member of staff told us that staff did not want to work extra shifts to provide cover as they were often too tired. Our discussions with senior managers showed that the clinic did not have ‘bank’ staff who could be contacted to provide staff cover when needed.

From our discussions it was evident that staff had a good understanding of their job roles. Staff told us they were generally satisfied with the level of support and training they received. The staff training matrix showed that staff received the training needed to perform their role. One member of staff told us, “It is a good staff team and we all work together”. Another member of staff told us they had been able to access shadowing opportunities at another of the provider’s clinics. Staff who undertook specific tasks such as scanning confirmed they had completed the relevant training to enable them to do this.

We were informed that for nursing and medical staff, information about their registration with professional bodies was collected centrally to ensure it was up to date and that the member of staff had the right to practice. Evidence of this was provided after our visit to the clinic.