Supervision Audit

Are staff supervisions being conducted at the frequency specified in the provider's policy and are there clear schedules in place?

What we look for: Sample 10% of staff files to verify if supervisions occur at the required frequency (e.g., quarterly). Good practice shows a forward-planned matrix with minimal missed or cancelled sessions. A fail would be multiple staff members missing supervisions for over 6 months without documented mitigation.

Evidence: Supervision matrix, staff files, supervision policy, electronic scheduling system

Is there an opportunity within supervision to discuss specific client care issues, safeguarding concerns, and learning from incidents?

What we look for: Examine notes for specific discussions regarding service users, near misses, or challenging behaviors encountered in the field. Good records show reflective practice where staff learn from recent incidents or raise low-level concerns. A fail is a total absence of client-focused discussion or missed opportunities to debrief after a safeguarding alert.

Evidence: Supervision notes, incident reports, safeguarding logs, client care plans

Are individual training needs, competency assessments, and career development goals actively discussed and documented during supervisions?

What we look for: Check if the supervisor reviews the care worker's training compliance and identifies opportunities for upskilling (e.g., specialized dementia or stoma care). Good practice links supervision directly to the staff member's personal development plan. Failing to identify expiring mandatory training or ignoring career progression requests would be a shortfall.

Evidence: Supervision notes, personal development plans (PDPs), training matrix, certificates

Do the staff conducting the supervisions have the appropriate skills, training, and competence to supervise others effectively?

What we look for: Verify that senior carers or field care supervisors conducting the sessions have received training in giving feedback, coaching, and appraisals. Good practice involves a 'train the trainer' or management course for supervisors. Allowing inexperienced or untrained staff to conduct formal supervisions risks poor quality oversight and is a fail.

Evidence: Supervisor training certificates (e.g., leadership/management), supervisor's own appraisals, HR records

Does the supervision record show a meaningful discussion about the staff member's wellbeing, mental health, and workload?

What we look for: Review supervision notes to ensure they go beyond tick-boxes and genuinely explore the care worker's pastoral needs and stress levels. Good looks like active listening and adjustments made for staff struggling with caseloads. A fail is generic, copy-pasted responses with no evidence of wellbeing support.

Evidence: Completed supervision records, staff meeting minutes, wellbeing action plans

Are actionable, SMART goals set during supervision, and are previous action points reviewed at the next session?

What we look for: Look at a sequence of 2-3 supervisions for the same staff member to track the continuity of action points. Good practice ensures goals are Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Relevant, and Time-bound. A fail is seeing the exact same uncompleted action carried over multiple times without escalation or support.

Evidence: Consecutive supervision records, action plans, performance improvement plans

Are supervision records detailed, securely stored, and signed and dated by both the supervisor and the supervisee?

What we look for: Check the physical or digital files for completeness, legibility, and appropriate signatures indicating mutual agreement. Good looks like contemporaneous notes uploaded securely to the HR system with both parties signing off. Missing signatures, loose papers, or vague one-word answers constitute a fail.

Evidence: Signed supervision agreements, digital signature logs, secure HR files

Are the results of field spot checks, direct observations, and client feedback integrated into the formal supervision discussion?

What we look for: Ensure that observational data from field visits (e.g., medication competency, infection control practice) feeds directly into one-to-one supervisions. Good records triangulate client feedback with the worker's self-assessment. Operating supervision completely in isolation from field performance data is a major governance gap.

Evidence: Spot check forms, client survey results, supervision records, compliments/complaints logs