You are here

We are carrying out a review of quality at Chesterfield Royal Hospital. We will publish a report when our review is complete. Find out more about our inspection reports.
All reports

Inspection report

Date of Inspection: 17 May 2011
Date of Publication: 12 July 2011
Inspection Report published 12 July 2011 PDF | 155.41 KB

Contents menu

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

We reviewed all the information we hold about this provider, carried out a visit on 17/05/2011, checked the provider's records, observed how people were being cared for, looked at records of people who use services, talked to staff and talked to people who use services.

Our judgement

Sufficient training is provided to ensure that people’s health and welfare needs are met by competent staff. Staff are supported by their line managers, annual appraisals and regular team meetings. Formal arrangements are not in place to ensure that all staff receive appropriate supervision.

User experience

People told us they were confident that the staff team had the knowledge and skills required to meet their needs.

Other evidence

We asked the provider to send us written information about how they were complying with regulations. The provider told us that “All staff are required to attend a comprehensive corporate induction process in addition to the local induction programme for their own work area.” The provider said that staff discuss their training needs and complete a personal development plan during their annual appraisal.

A new member of staff told us they had a two week corporate induction and then worked on the ward supernumerary alongside an experienced healthcare assistant.

Staff told us they attended a two day annual training programme that covered all the required mandatory training – such as manual handling and protection of children and vulnerable adults. Staff said they could also usually access additional training if they wanted to, for example, one member of staff had attended a course about tracheotomy and another had attended training about tissue viability. Most staff told us they felt they received sufficient training. One member of staff said they had limited development opportunities. They were unable to complete a National Vocational Qualification (NVQ) at level 3 unless they held a practitioner’s post. As there was only one practitioner’s post on the ward, this opportunity was unlikely.

This member of staff and other staff on the same ward said there were times when they were unable to attend planned training due to staffing pressures on the ward.

Staff at the birth centre at Chesterfield Royal Hospital and at the Darley Birth Centre told us they were provided with study days and specialist training updates. They also had regular ‘skills drills’ to practise their skills and knowledge, for example, in neonatal resuscitation.

Staff on one ward told us that the range of services provided had highlighted the need for training to develop staff knowledge and skills. Staff said that training and support had been put in place which they found beneficial. They said they also worked alongside more experienced staff to further their knowledge and skills.

The staff survey we looked at indicated that although 78% of staff had received an appraisal in the last 12 months, only 25% of staff said the appraisals were well structured.

The provider told us “Formal supervision processes are in place for a range of clinical staff groups in particular staff working with children, midwives and therapists. Junior doctors have an identified supervisor during their placement. Other staff receive informal supervision through the line management process, and they can request formal supervision via their line manager.”

Staff told us they had an appraisal every year where they discussed their training needs. Staff said there was no formal system of regular supervision sessions, though they could talk through any issues with their line manager on an informal basis.

The staff survey scores for staff feeling well supported by their immediate managers and for staff job satisfaction were in the worst 20% of similar trusts. 30% of staff said they were suffering work related stress which was worse than the average for similar trusts.

Staff told us they felt they received a good level of support from the ward managers. Staff said that regular team meetings were held where they could share information and express their views. We saw evidence of this in records of recent staff meetings.

Some staff told us that due to work pressures and recent changes to their terms and conditions of employment they felt that morale was low.

We saw information on the hospital website and in the local press about a scheme to publicly recognise and reward staff for outstanding contribution and commitment.