February

The Royal College of Psychiatrists suspended some activities last year after it realised it had not carried out background checks for more than 350 staff and patient representatives, reveals the HSJ.

HSJ understands the college had to put meetings of several of its committees on hold in September, while it carried out Disclosure and Barring Service checks on 374 people, including employees and patient and carer representatives.

Emails seen by HSJ show the college contacted its patient and carer representatives — often current or former mental health patients or carers it pays to help form policy and visit providers as part of accreditations — in October and November last year, asking them to fill in application forms for DBS checks.

The checks are ongoing but it is unclear how much of the college’s work remains suspended.

Some of the representatives had been working with the college for several years and been in contact with other vulnerable people at its committees or focus groups around the UK, HSJ has been told. 

The college confirmed to HSJ it was carrying out the outstanding background checks, but declined to say why they were missed, which staff groups were affected, and which activities had been suspended.

Robert Walker, who co-chaired the RCP’s now-disbanded “patients committee” for two years, told HSJ he did not have a DBS check in the five years he worked as a patient representative.

Mr Walker said: “As a vulnerable person I was amazed that a leading royal college or charity involved in mental health had not met the core principles of safeguarding.

“It’s a major issue because any vulnerable person with a physical or mental illness should be given appropriate safeguarding to protect them from psychological or physical abuse. The effect of them not applying checks is that it can put people at risk.”

The issue delayed the college’s plans to reform the role of its patient and carer representatives. These involve halving the number of representatives it uses from 300 to 150, but formally recruiting them as college employees and increasing their standard day rate from £100 to £140.

On 11 October, the college wrote to representatives to say that “in the light of updated guidance from the Charity Commission, we decided that only staff and patient and carer reviewers who have the minimum required DBS checks would be able to undertake college activity that brings them into contact with children and vulnerable adults”.

The email continued “administrative challenges… meant that we have been unable to carry out the checks as quickly as we would have liked”.

On 20 December, the college chief executive Paul Rees said in a further email that 120 of the 374 checks were completed, but the DBS checks meant the move to employed representatives was “unfortunately delayed”.

A Royal College of Psychiatrists spokeswoman said: “We are currently in the process of carrying [out] our DBS checks in line with recommendations with the Charity Commission for all our staff, patient and service user representatives and are due to conclude this work imminently.”

A Charity Commission spokeswoman said: “We previously engaged with the Royal College of Psychiatrists in May 2019 in relation to a safeguarding incident. The charity did the right thing when they reported the incident to the Commission and the trustees confirmed they were making a number of changes to their policies, including around DBS checks for patient and carer representatives, at the time. We followed-up with the charity on these changes, and based on the information provided to the Commission at the time, did not find further cause to engage. Should any further concerns come to light we would assess them.

 “More generally, protecting people from harm should be an absolute governance priority for all charities – this starts with having robust safeguarding policies in place and, crucially, ensuring they are followed.”

AccessNI have issued their latest newsletter with a whole host of updates and information for people using their services. Verifile’s Business Improvement team have handpicked the topics they think you need to know.

Working in premises/establishments regulated by Regulation & Quality Improvement Authority (RQIA)

Part V of the Police Act (Criminal Records)(Disclosure) Regulations 2009 enables RQIA to check senior managers in, and owners of, care homes as “suitable people”.

AccessNI have asked that all counter signatories are made aware of updated guidance. AccessNI say they continue to receive applications requesting barred list checks for positions which do not include health care and/or personal care duties.

The following will help you decide if a request is appropriate:

• Only staff employed to provide health care or personal care within an adult care home, and in regulated activity, should seek an enhanced disclosure with an (adults) barred list check
• Others employed in an adult care home would be eligible for an enhanced check (no barred list), on the basis this was previously a specified establishment, and provided they have opportunity for contact with vulnerable adults and can meet the frequency/intensity test
• Those temporarily working in a care home, such as maintenance staff, are only eligible for an enhanced check (no barred list) where they meet the frequency/intensity test for the same home. That is more likely to arise where the person is employed directly by the care home, e.g. a gardener rather than, for example, a lift engineer who is under contract to several homes. But each individual case needs to be considered on its merits.

Further Education Colleges - Eligibility for AccessNI Disclosure checks

Individuals working in a Further Education College (with under 18s), who are not in positions of Regulated Activity, are eligible for an enhanced disclosure certificate with no barred list check. This is on condition that they meet the frequency requirement (once per week or four times a month).

Cleaners, auxiliary staff and administrative staff in these establishments are eligible for an enhanced disclosure with no barred list check on condition that they meet the frequency requirement.

Public Services Card (Ireland)

AccessNI has received further clarification on the use of the Public Services Card (Ireland) as an acceptable ID document.

As AccessNI is not regarded as a ‘Specified Body’ under Schedule 5 of the Social Welfare Consolidation Act 2005, they can no longer include this card in their Group 2B documentation.

Accordingly, the following AccessNI documentations have been updated:

• Guide to identity checking can be found here
• AccessNI PIN notification and ID validation for registered bodies can be found here
• AccessNI PIN notification and ID validation for responsible bodies can be found here

EU Exit - ROI and EU checks

AccessNI has confirmed that, with the UK having now left the EU, information can continue to be sought from the Irish authorities for enhanced applications, where the individual lives or has lived in the past five years in the Republic of Ireland.

They can also obtain information from another 12 EU countries where a national of one of these countries applies for an enhanced check working with children in Northern Ireland.

This remains the position during the designated transition period after the UK leaves the EU. Further information about the position after transition ends will be provided as soon as it’s known.

You can read AccessNI: Newsletter 32 in full here.

Finding and retaining staff is an inevitable expense of business, for all but the humblest garage start-up.

A study at U.C. Berkeley found that hiring a new employee can cost as much as $4K without counting salary. That figure rises to $7K for employees at the level of management or specialized professionals. Even in the best-case scenario, a successful hire still leaves a dent in the company’s bottom line for a while. An unsuccessful hire just wastes that money and forces you to start over again. This is one of the most cost-focused arguments to run a background check.

Criminal history, liability, and your company

It is only natural for anyone applying for a position to present their best face to you. It is up to you to vet a candidate and find out if their history includes criminal convictions which would make them a risky proposition. But beyond that, being negligent in employing someone in a sensitive position can expose you to liability from other employees, customers, or the public. Some examples of scenarios where a company can be liable for a bad hire include:

• DUI (Driving Under Influence) history in a driving position

• Theft/embezzlement /financial fraud in a position that will handle money

• Identity theft in a position that will have access to customer data

• Assault/violent record placed in a public-facing position

• Sex offender in a position that’s part of a team

Any of these kinds of cases can be brought into court as charges that your company is liable for damages as a result of your negligence. This is a negative outcome on top of the damages or losses to your company and the cost of hiring a new person to fill that position.

Checking credentials

It would seem that proving a candidate’s educational credentials would be a simple matter of viewing a diploma, but that’s not the case. There are several ways in which academic certifications can turn out to be fake. Diplomas can be obtained from a diploma mill, or they can be outright counterfeit forgeries.

Above that, there is such thing as fraud and corruption in academic circles, as well as student fraud such as purchased essays or bribed university officials. A little scrutiny and investigation into the background check process can root out at least some attempts at academic falsification. Paying attention to any red flags raised in the credentials check can save you the later embarrassment of hiring an impostor in a professional position.

Company reputation

We live in an age of easy information access, where one critical Yelp review can sink your company’s reputation. While customers can freely gossip about your employee’s service, sites like Glassdoor are also available for prospective candidates to check your reputation on the employment-end. If you are unlucky enough to have an incident where one co-worker had an unpleasant experience with an improperly vetted hire, future candidates might shy away from applying to your company.

Harvard Business Review reports that a bad reputation costs a company an extra 10% for all future hires. Once word gets out that your company has bed hiring practices, it becomes that much harder to attract the talent you need. This is an unavoidable reality when the job market is competitive. All other metrics being equal, people like to work at a job where they feel safe and secure.

Job seekers tend to avoid companies with aspects like a high turnover rate, which is also a symptom of low-quality hiring.

Conducting a background check

As an employer, you’re responsible for compliance with all laws regarding fair hiring practices. This is simple enough if you stick to some common-sense rules:

• Always inform the subject that you are running a background check on them

• Get their signature on the release form

• Do not make considerations that could be construed as discrimination against race, gender, orientation, or beliefs

• Remember that in criminal matters, an arrest, mugshot, or trial means nothing without a conviction

• Give the candidate a fair chance to answer for your findings

A one-on-one sit-down is recommended with the candidate. Everyone is different and few people are without a single questionable incident on their record. Your candidate might be able to clear up misunderstandings in their record.

There are even some cases where you can have a bad mark on your record that you weren’t aware of, thanks to identity theft or simple clerical errors. Going over the candidate with the results can help illuminate the undisputed truth of their record.