You are here

Synexus Thames Valley Clinical Research Centre

Reports


During a check to make sure that the improvements required had been made

We had previously inspected this service on 17 March 2014. The provider has now provided evidence to demonstrate that recruitment processes have improved and people were now cared for, or supported by, suitably qualified, skilled and experienced staff.

Inspection carried out on 17 March 2014

During an inspection to make sure that the improvements required had been made

At our last inspection on 8 January 2014 we found the provider had not completed all the required pre-employment recruitment checks before staff began work.

At this inspection, we checked the recruitment records for all eight members of staff. We found all of the required pre-employment checks were completed for five staff members. However, we found the records for three staff members did not contain satisfactory evidence of their conduct in previous employment, where this was concerned with the provision of services relating to health or social care. This meant the provider did not have an effective recruitment process in place. There was a risk that people who use the service would be cared for by staff who were not suitable for the role.

We did not speak with people who use the service or staff at this inspection, but we did discuss recruitment procedures with the provider.

Inspection carried out on 8 January 2014

During an inspection to make sure that the improvements required had been made

During our inspection we found the provider had put measures in place to improve the recruitment and selection process. The provider’s staff recruitment and selection policy and procedures had been revised to ensure completion of the required pre-employment checks for new staff. This was to ensure that people who use the service were not placed at risk of being cared for by staff not suitable for the role. The manager told us existing staff recruitment files had been reviewed to ensure the required pre- employment checks were completed.

When we checked staff recruitment records, however, we found that although most of the concerns from our last inspection were addressed, not all of the required employment checks were in place before staff started working at the Centre. Proof of conduct checks from previous health and social care employers were not completed for three out of seven members of staff. This meant people who use the service were placed at risk of being cared for by staff who were not suitable for the role.

Inspection carried out on 12, 13 June 2013

During a routine inspection

People had no concerns about the service and found the staff to be professional, caring, polite and friendly. People felt that confidentiality and dignity were ensured during their Dual Energy X-ray Absorptiometry (DEXA) visit. This is an enhanced form of X-ray technology used to measure the amount of calcium in bones. One person said “staff talk to me in a respectful way.”

People we spoke with told us they had been provided with all the information they needed to make a decision about whether to go ahead with the DEXA procedure. One person said, "It was a very good service, they went through everything with me, I was very happy." Another person said "I was told what to expect.”

There were arrangements in place to obtain and record people's consent to the DEXA scan. Care records showed people had signed consent forms which detailed risks related to the scanning procedure. The facilities were clean and there were audit schedules in place to ensure standards of cleanliness were maintained. Systems were in place to identify any possible concerns in the delivery and quality of care. These included collecting feedback from people, a complaints procedure, and monitoring of incidents.

Appropriate checks were not always undertaken by the provider before staff began work. Missing documentation included evidence of enhanced Criminal Records Bureau checks (now called Disclosure and Barring Service checks) and reasons for leaving previous employment, where the employment had involved working with children or vulnerable adults.

We spoke with the person managing the service on the day of our inspection. The location did not have a registered manager at the time of our inspection.