You are here

All reports

Inspection report

Date of Inspection: 11 January 2011
Date of Publication: 9 February 2011
Inspection Report published 9 February 2011 PDF

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

Our judgement

We found evidence to demonstrate that people who use services would have their health and welfare needs met by competent staff. The provider had declared at registration prior to April 2010 that it was not meeting this outcome because insufficient numbers of staff across several locations had received a recent appraisal. For this location we found evidence to demonstrate all appraisals had been completed for available staff and we no longer have a minor concern regarding this outcome at The Longley Centre.

User experience

It was not possible to gain the direct views of people who use the service for this outcome on this review.

Other evidence

At registration this location declared that it was not meeting this standard due to the results of the 2009 staff survey identifying that insufficient members of staff had received an annual personal development plan/appraisal. An action was put in place with an expected completion date of summer 2010. None of the external stakeholders referred to within outcome one who responded raised any areas of concern specifically relating to this location or outcome.

Our provider level QRP for this outcome contained mostly positive information. Negative information centred around personal development areas and appraisal, support regarding violence, well structured team environment and some areas of training. However these areas should be considered against some 2009 staff survey findings. Key finding 28 ' perceptions of effective action from employer towards violence and aggression was found to be 'tending towards better than expected' when compared with other trusts nationally along with key finding 28 'staff receiving job relevant training, learning and development in the last 12 months'. The clear theme from the negative staff survey findings are centred on staff personal development and appraisal, which the provider had identified.

As part of the assessment of this location the provider submitted a detailed provider compliance assessment which explained how the provider was meeting the outcome. The self assessment explained the various measures in place to ensure that staff members are properly supported, trained, supervised and appraised. No gaps in assurance or concerns were identified following review of this self assessment.

Additional evidence was sought from the provider in the form of an annual team governance report for Rowan ward covering the period April 2009 to March 2010. The report included a section on appraisals which showed all available staff on Rowan ward had received an appraisal. As the provider had declared it was not meeting this outcome due to appraisals in its registration application (submitted February 2010) we had continued to have a minor concern about this outcome at The Longley Centre. However email confirmation received 7 December 2010 from the provider demonstrated all available staff had received a completed appraisal for the whole location and we no longer have a minor concern over this area of the outcome.

The governance report also included a detailed section on training and education which showed that in addition to the providers mandatory training the various staff groups had been able to access a wide range of training and raised no concerns.

Some concerns had been raised via local intelligence regarding bed over occupancy matters in acute mental health locations causing increased stress levels and pressure for staff members (explained in outcome 4). However the staff survey 2009 found that staff suffering work related stress in the last 12 months was rated as 'tending towards better than expected' and work pressure felt by staff was found to be 'much better than expected'. It had also been suggested bed over occupancy may affect training opportunities for staff members but we found no evidence to demonstrate this.

We asked staff members as part of the site visit performed 6 January 2011 a number of questions relating to this outcome. All those asked stated they had received a completed appraisal and that they “Feel very well supported by colleagues, management and senior management of trust”, and there are “good training opportunities”. When asked what additional training opportunities they would like to receive staff members mentioned specialist subject areas such as Bi-polar disorders and similar.