Hiring a care assistant
Two hundred applications, absolute eligibility rules, and a registered manager who is already covering shifts. This is the role Selene is most obviously for — and the one where getting it wrong costs the most.
The pile is enormous and the CVs all look the same. Care applications arrive in volume and arrive thin: a list of previous homes, a line about being caring and hardworking, and very little you can act on. A large share fail an absolute requirement — right to work, shift availability, vetting — that no amount of reading a CV will surface, so hours go into people who were never eligible. And the thing that actually predicts whether someone stays past month three is not on the page at all: whether they treat residents as people or as a task list.
From one line to a guide that fits your home
Selene asks what a frontline, regulated, high-volume role turns on — shift patterns, vetting, and what the rate is actually competing against locally.
Shifts, vetting, and a rate that competes
For a frontline role she goes after volume and shift patterns rather than tooling. She also sense-checks the pay rate against the market before saving it — cheap to hear at the start of a role, expensive to discover three weeks into it with no applicants.
One sentence changes the guide
Care managers almost always know this answer and almost never get asked for it. It matters because the obvious guide — years of experience, certificates held — filters out exactly the people this manager wants, and does it silently.
Exceptional, not just good —
“The ones who last are the ones who talk to residents like people, not tasks. I can teach the medication side.”
→ Person-centred practice became top-weighted; medication training dropped from a requirement to a bonus.
What the guide ends up measuring
Six criteria, typed and weighted. Three eligibility must-haves that the application page will ask outright, and the rest weighted toward what the manager actually said predicts someone staying — with medication training demoted, because he'd rather train it than screen for it.
Ask the disqualifying questions first
Three of those must-haves are yes-or-no facts, and there is no point scoring a CV against a fact. Selene puts them on your public application page instead, so the answer arrives with the application rather than surfacing in a phone call a week later. On a role like this that is often a third of the pile resolved before any AI runs — and none of it billed as screening.
Every applicant read the same way
Applicant 180 is measured against exactly the same guide as applicant 3 — and the scorer never sees who any of them are. No name, no raw CV, and stated date of birth, sex, nationality and religion stripped before scoring runs. On a role this regulated, that is the difference between a shortlist and a shortlist you can evidence.
How the blind scoring works →What stays with you
Selene's half
- Turning the brief into requirements, and the eligibility ones into application-page questions
- Reading all 186 against the same guide, blind, with the evidence attached
- A ranked shortlist with a recommend-or-decline call on each
- A decision record that still explains itself months later, to whoever asks
Yours
- Advertising the role — Selene doesn't post to job boards or sourcing sites
- Confirming vetting and references before anyone starts; she records what candidates state, she doesn't verify it
- The interview and the values conversation, with her brief in hand
- Every hiring decision, and any override — which is stored with your reason
See what she builds for your home
Residential or domiciliary, nights or days, one vacancy or twelve — describe it in a sentence and see the guide come back shaped around it.