Advisory or Mandatory?

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.