Supervision: does regulation promote ‘best practice’?


Posted on October 1st, by editor in Caring Times. No Comments

The Care Standards Act Regulations (18 (2) (a)) state that “persons working at the care home are appropriately supervised”, and the National Minimum Standards (36) interprets this as being “Care staff receive formal supervision at least six times a year”. Inspection officers appear to be operating to a policy that requires them to examine supervision notes in order to determine whether compliance is being observed. This presents us with several problems: Firstly does Standard 36 truly reflect the intention of the Regulation? I don’t think so, if it is remembered that the Protection of Vulnerable Adults (POVA) Regulations state that staff may be employed if the POVA First Clearance has been obtained, providing that the staff are supervised. This clearly does not mean formal supervision as delineated in the NMS, so I argue that Standard 36 is not enforceable because it does not reflect the Regulation and is merely recommended best practice – practice that I entirely support. I accept the argument, promoted by t





Comments are closed.


Latest blog posts

The future’s bright, alright?

By Caring Times editor GEOFF HODGSON

There has been a lot of debate about ‘hard’ and ‘soft’ borders of late (if it’s any help, I like...

Time for a ten dollar answer

By Caring Times editor GEOFF HODGSON

Ernest Hemingway was known for his minimalist style and he used to pooh-pooh what he called “ten-dollar” words. Not to...

Lacking capacity

By guest blogger JEF SMITH

A friend of mine diagnosed with cancer – now, happily, treated – was asked how he could possibly have missed the...