When is mandatory training not mandatory?
Apparently when it applies to the social care sector.
There’s something a bit wishy washy about labelling training
as mandatory when there is no actual requirement to complete said training. Or
worse still, when there is a stated ‘requirement’ to do the training (by the
CQC) but there are no real consequences when the training is not completed.
Unless you count a slightly lower inspection rating as a real consequence. Is
it just me or is it slightly baffling that there is no legal requirement to
complete any training in the delivery of social care?
Care providers themselves determine whether a training
course is mandatory or not. Some will deem it mandatory while others will
consider it optional. While the CQC may require that a service trains their
staff to a minimum standard, this is not legally binding. It seems training is
a ‘should do?’ rather than a ‘MUST DO!’
The training of care workers in the new Care Certificate is
advisory rather than mandatory. The Care Certificate which is promoted as the
basic or minimum entry level course is not actually a qualification as we
understand the term. It is not on the National Qualification Framework
(NQF) but it is considered a Continuing Professional Development (CPD) course.
This is a fantastic introduction to the world of care work and is indeed a
minimum requirement for care workers. It is not, alas, mandatory unless deemed
mandatory by the care provider.
We have a long way to go before we have a professionalised
and regulated social care workforce. There are many reasons why it is important
to achieve this. First and foremost is the quality it will bring to the care of
the growing number of elderly and vulnerable people in our society. Secondly it
will attach a greater value to this incredibly important work and allow carers
to follow a career path with pay scales that reflect the importance of this
work. Is it the case that the current
status of care work is an accurate reflection of how we as a society value care
work? That is, not very highly. We are quick to jump on stories of poor care
and express horror and outrage when people are abused and otherwise mistreated
but when we scratch the surface a little and look at the way workers are
trained and what they are paid, it is clear that the explanations for these
behaviours cannot be simply dismissed as the actions of ‘rogue carers’.
Better pay will in turn attract and hold on to the right
calibre of person needed by this growing social care sector. The resulting
lower turnover of staff will add to the stability of the workforce which,
again, will benefit the end users.
A better trained workforce with professional status will
help care workers achieve something approaching parity with their health sector
counterparts. This in itself will go a small way to greasing the wheels on the
journey to an integrated health and social care system. The disparity in
training, pay and conditions does nothing to facilitate the team spirit needed
when workers are required to work across professional and organisational
boundaries in the pursuit of an integrated health and social care system.
There’s an old adage that ‘Ignorance is no defence in law
but training is’. I’m sure the day will come when training is, itself, a legal requirement.
