You are here

Royal Surrey County Hospital Good

All reports

Inspection report

Date of Inspection: 16 August 2012
Date of Publication: 4 September 2012
Inspection Report published 4 September 2012 PDF

Staff should be properly trained and supervised, and have the chance to develop and improve their skills (outcome 14)

Meeting this standard

We checked that people who use this service

  • Are safe and their health and welfare needs are met by competent staff.

How this check was done

Our judgement

People were cared for by staff who were supported to deliver care and treatment safely and to an appropriate standard.

The provider was meeting this standard.

User experience

We asked in-patients if they felt staff were sufficiently well trained for the work they were doing. The majority said they did think staff were well trained, and several added comments such as “They seem to know what they are doing. They do little kindnesses for you” and “On the whole you are looked after well here.”

On the Outpatients’ self completion questionnaires we asked if staff appeared sufficiently well trained for the work they were doing and 77 of the 79 respondents answered ‘Yes’ to this question. The remaining two put a question mark in this box. We also asked people if there was a member of staff available to speak with if they had any worries, and 71 answered ‘Yes’ to this question. Only one person answered ‘No’, with the remainder either leaving this blank, or adding ‘not applicable’ or ‘…unable to judge.’ A negative comment relating to staff in one area was passed on to the management of the hospital for their attention. Positive comments relating to staff included ‘They appear very meticulous and thorough’ and ‘They all seem well informed and explain procedures.’

Other evidence

During our inspection we asked for a one to one meeting with the hospital’s lead person for training. Three people were made available: the head of nursing education and practice development; the training and organisation development manager, and the head of human resources business support. They gave us an overview of the trust’s arrangements for training and development, and this included how the trust ensured that all staff had received mandatory training relevant for their role. They also told us about how personal development training needs were captured and how the trust analysed future training needs. They also showed us the monitoring arrangements that were in place, and how training was delivered across the hospital.

We asked about the induction arrangements for new members of staff and were told that new starters undergo both corporate and local induction. Corporate induction sessions took place monthly and covered a range of subjects applicable to all staff. Local induction covered subjects that were applicable to particular groups of staff. Line managers would be responsible for ensuring that training needs were identified and that appropriate training was requested. Attendance at training was monitored and any non attendance would be followed up.

We asked how the overall training needs for the hospital were established, and were told that individual training and development needs would be picked up via the appraisal process. Managers would be expected to identify emerging themes that may require training across groups of staff. Other training needs may be identified by national or local issues.

The trust provided a copy of their training and development policy dated June 2009 which confirmed the above arrangements. Local induction checklists across a variety of specialities were also submitted.

The trust had a training database which it used to monitor the training of all staff. We were given a demonstration of the database. It was possible to search by individual departments, teams and staff members. It showed the training already undertaken by an individual, any that was outstanding, and training that was due for a refresher course. We were told that managers had access to the tool to enable them to monitor training compliance within their team. Information from the database was used in performance management of staff. There was a link from the database to the electronic rotas which calculated the amount of time required to arrange staff cover for upcoming training. Overall we found there were good systems in place to manage the training at this hospital.

Staff supervision arrangements were decided by each department and differed according to each specialism. For clinical staff this may involve for example working alongside a colleague/manager with the necessary experience, reflective learning, or use of the skills lab to simulate situations. As the frequency of supervision is decided locally, no central records were available for this

We were told that the trust had put a lot of effort into the re-launch of it’s appraisal scheme following the poor results in the NHS staff survey on this issue. The scheme covered all staff and was included in the new staff induction. Managers had been given training in how to use the scheme and their first target was to ensure that all their staff had undergone an annual appraisal. Individual appraisals covered core competencies, had a link to service delivery, and were rated. The scheme was linked to reward.

Appraisals were required to be carried out annually with a six month review. Managers were recommended to have a three month catch up meeting. Central monitoring of the scheme took place and the trust were confident that they could improve upon the rate completed in the NHS staff survey. However this scheme only appeared to go live from May 2012 so these were early days in its operation. Copies of the appraisal guidance, documentation, and manager br