Inspection on 02/09/08 for Chestnut House Care Home

This is the latest available inspection report for this service, carried out on 2nd September 2008.

CSCI found this care home to be providing an Good service.

The inspector made no statutory requirements on the home as a result of this inspection and there were no outstanding actions from the previous inspection report.

Other inspections for this house

Chestnut House Care Home 14/02/07

Similar services:

Chirnside House

Keer Sands Residential Home

Ruskin Lodge

Bushell House

Langrigg House

Parkside

Dystlegh Grange

Thornton Lodge

Extracts from inspection reports are licensed from CQC, this page was updated on 13/03/2009.

CARE HOMES FOR OLDER PEOPLE Chestnut House Care Home 69 Crumpsall Lane Crumpsall Manchester M8 5SR Lead Inspector John Oliver Unannounced Inspection 10:00a 2 September 2008 nd X10015.doc Version 1.40 Page 1 The Commission for Social Care Inspection aims to: • • • • Put the people who use social care first Improve services and stamp out bad practice Be an expert voice on social care Practise what we preach in our own organisation Reader Information Document Purpose Author Audience Further copies from Copyright Inspection Report CSCI General Public 0870 240 7535 (telephone order line) This report is copyright Commission for Social Care Inspection (CSCI) and may only be used in its entirety. Extracts may not be used or reproduced without the express permission of CSCI www.csci.org.uk Internet address Chestnut House Care Home DS0000067980.V364588.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 2 This is a report of an inspection to assess whether services are meeting the needs of people who use them. The legal basis for conducting inspections is the Care Standards Act 2000 and the relevant National Minimum Standards for this establishment are those for Care Homes for Older People. They can be found at www.dh.gov.uk or obtained from The Stationery Office (TSO) PO Box 29, St Crispins, Duke Street, Norwich, NR3 1GN. Tel: 0870 600 5522. Online ordering: www.tso.co.uk/bookshop This report is a public document. Extracts may not be used or reproduced without the prior permission of the Commission for Social Care Inspection. Chestnut House Care Home DS0000067980.V364588.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 3 SERVICE INFORMATION Name of service Chestnut House Care Home Address 69 Crumpsall Lane Crumpsall Manchester M8 5SR Telephone number Fax number Email address Provider Web address Name of registered provider(s)/company (if applicable) Name of registered manager (if applicable) Type of registration No. of places registered (if applicable) 0161 721 4949 0161 950 9200 Beech House Care Homes Limited Theresa Walsh Care Home 19 Category(ies) of Old age, not falling within any other category registration, with number (19) of places Chestnut House Care Home DS0000067980.V364588.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 4 SERVICE INFORMATION Conditions of registration: 1. The registered person may provide the following category/ies of service only: Care home only - Code PC, to service users of the following gender: Either; whose primary care needs on admission to the home are within the following categories: Old age, not falling within any other category - Code OP. The maximum number of service users who can be accommodated is: 19. 4th September 2007 Date of last inspection Brief Description of the Service: Chestnut House is a care home providing personal care and accommodation for up to 19 older people and is owned by Beech House Care Homes Limited. No nursing care is provided. The home is situated in the Crumpsall area of Manchester. It is close to local shops and bus routes. The home is a three storey building set within its own grounds. The garden is well maintained and easily accessible. Off road parking is available at the front of the building. There are 19 single bedrooms, of which five have en-suite toilet facilities. There is a passenger lift to enable access to the first floor. The owners use the third floor as private accommodation. At the time of the inspection site visit, weekly fees averaged £379.53 and additional charges are made for hairdressing, private chiropody, newspapers, dry cleaning, some activities and the use of the telephone. Cost of transport, such as private hire vehicles, is not included in the weekly fee. Some charges may be made for escorting residents to private appointments but this is by arrangement with the management of the home. Chestnut House Care Home DS0000067980.V364588.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 5 SUMMARY This is an overview of what the inspector found during the inspection. The quality rating for this service is 2 star. This means the people who use this service experience good quality outcomes. We came to this quality rating at the last key inspection. The inspection was undertaken as part of a key inspection, which includes an analysis of any information received by us (the Commission for Social Care Inspection) in relation to the home prior to the site visit. This visit, which the home did not know what going to happen, took place over the course of nine hours on Tuesday, 2 September 2008. During the course of the site visit we spent time talking to the residents, the registered manager, the owners and staff on duty to find out their view of the home. Before the site visit we sent the manager of the home an Annual Quality Assurance Assessment (AQAA) document for them to complete and return to us with information about the service they provide. This was returned before the visit took place and contained some information that helped us to assess the service being offered by the home. We also spent time examining various files and written information and spent some time looking around the building. What the service does well: The atmosphere in the home was relaxed and friendly and residents were seen to be walking around the home without any restrictions being placed upon them. Residents spoken to told us, “Staff are really good” and “The manager and the owners are always around to talk to if you need them”. The manager made sure the home only cared for those people whose needs the staff could meet. Staff contacted doctors, district nurses and other health care professionals when residents needed them. The manager was careful about whom they offered a job to and made sure they checked people out before offering them a job. Chestnut House Care Home DS0000067980.V364588.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 6 People were happy with the service being provided by the home and one relative had sent a card stating, “Thank you all so much for your tender loving care of my wonderful mum – we really felt that she was living with her ‘extended’ family and that you all loved her so much”. What has improved since the last inspection? What they could do better: Please contact the provider for advice of actions taken in response to this inspection. The report of this inspection is available from enquiries@csci.gsi.gov.uk or by contacting your local CSCI office. The summary of this inspection report can be made available in other formats on request. Chestnut House Care Home DS0000067980.V364588.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 7 DETAILS OF INSPECTOR FINDINGS CONTENTS Choice of Home (Standards 1–6) Health and Personal Care (Standards 7-11) Daily Life and Social Activities (Standards 12-15) Complaints and Protection (Standards 16-18) Environment (Standards 19-26) Staffing (Standards 27-30) Management and Administration (Standards 31-38) Scoring of Outcomes Statutory Requirements Identified During the Inspection Chestnut House Care Home DS0000067980.V364588.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 8 Choice of Home The intended outcomes for Standards 1 – 6 are: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Prospective service users have the information they need to make an informed choice about where to live. Each service user has a written contract/ statement of terms and conditions with the home. No service user moves into the home without having had his/her needs assessed and been assured that these will be met. Service users and their representatives know that the home they enter will meet their needs. Prospective service users and their relatives and friends have an opportunity to visit and assess the quality, facilities and suitability of the home. Service users assessed and referred solely for intermediate care are helped to maximise their independence and return home. The Commission considers Standards 3 and 6 the key standards to be inspected. JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for the following standard(s): 1, 3 and 6 Quality in this outcome area is good. This judgement has been made using available evidence, including a visit to this service. Information is made available to all prospective residents and their family/relatives to help them make a decision about coming to live in Chestnut House. Residents’ needs are fully assessed before coming to live in the home. EVIDENCE: Since the last inspection visit in September 2007 the statement of purpose and service user guide had both been reviewed and updated with relevant information. Discussion with the manager confirmed that should it be requested, both documents could be provided in large print versions. The manager had placed a copy of both documents in bedrooms throughout the home. Chestnut House Care Home DS0000067980.V364588.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 9 We looked at the file of one resident that has been admitted to Chestnut House since the last key inspection visit and we saw evidence on file that the manager of the home had visited this person in their own home to carry out an assessment of need. This person was admitted into the home on 20 March 2008 and the assessment was carried out on 18 March 2008. The assessment paperwork had been signed by the manager and the daughter of the prospective resident. We also saw evidence that a care manager from Social Services had been involved in the admission process. The manager told us that over the past 12 months that any vacant bed had been used to support people needing short term or respite stay care. We discussed the importance of putting such information in the service user guide to reflect that sometimes the home will admit people who require short stay care only. The manager confirmed that intermediate care services were not offered. Chestnut House Care Home DS0000067980.V364588.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 10 Health and Personal Care The intended outcomes for Standards 7 – 11 are: 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. The service user’s health, personal and social care needs are set out in an individual plan of care. Service users’ health care needs are fully met. Service users, where appropriate, are responsible for their own medication, and are protected by the home’s policies and procedures for dealing with medicines. Service users feel they are treated with respect and their right to privacy is upheld. Service users are assured that at the time of their death, staff will treat them and their family with care, sensitivity and respect. The Commission considers Standards 7, 8, 9 and 10 the key standards to be inspected. JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for the following standard(s): 7, 8, 9 and 10 Quality in this outcome area is good. This judgement has been made using available evidence, including a visit to this service. The home supports people to maintain their personal care and healthcare in the way they prefer. Supporting policies and procedures were in place to support staff in the safe handling and administration of medication. EVIDENCE: Each person living in the home had an individual plan of care and, since the last inspection visit, the manager has reviewed each care plan and updated them with further relevant information to ensure all identified care needs are covered. Improvements have been made in the way in which the information is written in order to help staff provide support in the most appropriate way to the individual. For example, “… suffers confusion and memory loss – one carer to assist … when needed. Encourage and prompt and … will say how much input she needs”. This information had been signed by the manager and the resident’s daughter. Chestnut House Care Home DS0000067980.V364588.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 11 Although those care plans seen had been reviewed on a monthly basis some had not been updated where necessary when things change. For example, in one care plan it stated that a fluid chart must be completed to monitor fluid intake. This plan had been reviewed regularly, but when asked, the manager said that the fluid intake chart had not been necessary for some months. Lack of updating care plans with relevant information could lead to inappropriate care being provided. A key worker system is operated in the home. This is where one member of staff will work more closely with a number of named residents in order to provide them with a more personalised service, such as bathing and showering. On a monthly basis the key worker completes an input record for each of the residents they support and the information written in this record helps to provide an overview about how the resident has been over the past month. Such information is then used as part of the reviewing process for care planning and accessing other health services where required. The manager told us that the local authority (Social Services) had carried out reviews in April 2008 for the majority of the residents living in Chestnut House. Records seen demonstrated that residents had access to other health care professionals, such as the District Nursing services, Audiologist, Chiropodist and General Practitioners, and all visits are recorded. Good information from such visits is also recorded in the day/night report for the individual resident. A number of written compliments had been received from relatives of people who were or had been living in the home. One recently received card stated “Thank you all so much for your tender loving care of my wonderful mum … We really felt that she was living with her ‘extended’ family and that you all loved her so much”. We received three completed survey questionnaires back from relatives or advocates before we carried out this visit and all stated that they felt their relatives/friends needs were met. Comments included “I am always speaking to the residents I work with or on their behalf and will always speak with the manager if I have any concerns”. Only senior staff in the home have responsibility for administering medication, although all care staff had received accredited training in this subject. The supplying pharmacy had provided training booklets that include a three-unit programme (level 2 accredited) and a professional trainer is brought into the home to deliver the actual training package. The manager said that the trainer would then carry out regular checks on the individuals’ competency levels when administering medication. Chestnut House Care Home DS0000067980.V364588.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 12 Medication was stored in a locked medication room. This room also served as a treatment room for district nurses to use and appropriate hand washing facilities were available. An appropriate medication refrigerator was available for the storage of any medication that may need to be kept at specific temperatures. At the time of our visit this refrigerator was ‘iced up’ and the manager was advised to de-frost this as soon as possible in order to maintain appropriate temperatures for medication storage. A monitored dosage system is used to administer medication in the home and daily medication is stored in a medication trolley anchored to the wall in the lounge during the day. Medication administration records were in place and all have a front sheet containing a photograph of the resident to aid identification. We checked a number of the records and found that these had been appropriately signed with no gaps in signatures apparent. A random selection of medication to be given ‘as and when required’ was checked and balances were found to be correct in most instances. Discussion with the manager confirmed that all unused or discontinued medication is recorded and then returned to the pharmacy on a monthly basis and at the time of our visit no resident was prescribed controlled drugs. We watched staff interacting with residents throughout the visit and we saw that the privacy and dignity of residents were respected. Privacy locks were available on all toilets and bathroom doors and each bedroom had a lock that could be overridden in an emergency. Chestnut House Care Home DS0000067980.V364588.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 13 Daily Life and Social Activities The intended outcomes for Standards 12 - 15 are: 12. 13. 14. 15. Service users find the lifestyle experienced in the home matches their expectations and preferences, and satisfies their social, cultural, religious and recreational interests and needs. Service users maintain contact with family/ friends/ representatives and the local community as they wish. Service users are helped to exercise choice and control over their lives. Service users receive a wholesome appealing balanced diet in pleasing surroundings at times convenient to them. The Commission considers all of the above key standards to be inspected. JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for the following standard(s): 12, 13, 14 and 15 Quality in this outcome area is good. This judgement has been made using available evidence, including a visit to this service. Residents are encouraged and supported to exercise choice in their daily routines in relation to lifestyle and activities and to maintain contact with their relatives. EVIDENCE: Since the last key inspection visit, in September 2007, further improvements have been made to the way in which activities are made available to residents. Staff with the responsibility for arranging and developing activities have been increased from two to three and discussion with one of these staff during this visit confirmed their dedication to further improving the availability of various activities. Discussion with this member of staff also confirmed that she was in the process of gathering information from residents about their interests and things that they would like to do. She was also considering ways in which people who were more mentally frail could be involved in activities that were more appropriate to meet their capabilities and emotional needs. Chestnut House Care Home DS0000067980.V364588.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 14 We saw that a daily diary was kept in which the activities taking place were recorded and we recommended that a record should also be made of each resident that was involved in a particular activity. Different ways of communicating information about available social activities to residents was being developed and a printed calendar in picture format identifying what activities are on offer throughout the week was being trialled. On the day of this inspection visit a number of residents were involved in one to one activities with members of the staff team and we saw evidence (photographs) of recent trips to places such as Chester Zoo. In the returned survey questionnaires we received from relatives/advocates before the inspection took place comments about activities include “There has been an improvement in the activities which will always benefit most residents, also the layout of the lounge both downstairs and upstairs has been changed, the manager and staff are always willing to listen to everybody”. Discussion with the manager and staff of the home confirmed that no restrictions were placed on visitors to the home and examination of the visitors book demonstrated that visits to the home by relatives and friends was fairly frequent. The manager also told us that five residents are supported by a local advocacy service. Feedback from residents spoken to was generally positive about the food served in the home and comments included “Food is OK – you get more than enough” and “You get asked what you would like”. Menus are planned using a four weekly menu and a main meal was observed being served during this visit. This meal consisted of beef stew and dumplings, mashed potatoes and vegetables or cod in sauce, followed by sponge cake and custard. This meal was served hot, looked appetising and was nicely presented. Residents needing support were assisted by staff in a discreet and sensitive manner. Special and culturally appropriate diets could be provided for and the manager and senior staff keep the cooks informed of any relevant medical information regarding individual residents so that suitable menus can be planned and needs catered for. Chestnut House Care Home DS0000067980.V364588.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 15 Complaints and Protection The intended outcomes for Standards 16 - 18 are: 16. 17. 18. Service users and their relatives and friends are confident that their complaints will be listened to, taken seriously and acted upon. Service users’ legal rights are protected. Service users are protected from abuse. The Commission considers Standards 16 and 18 the key standards to be. JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for the following standard(s): 16 and 18 Quality in this outcome area is good. This judgement has been made using available evidence, including a visit to this service. Policies, procedures and training measures were in place for staff to support residents to raise any concerns and to protect residents from neglect and abuse. EVIDENCE: A complaints procedure was in place, which was displayed throughout the home and included timescales for responses to complaints made and full details of how to contact the Commission for Social Care Inspection. However, it would be good if contact details of the Local Authority Commissioning Unit could also be included. The manager confirmed that one complaint had been received from a resident since the last inspection visit in September 2007. Examination of the records demonstrated that the issue had been appropriately dealt with. No formal system was used in which to record complaints and this was fully discussed with the manager. The Commission for Social Care Inspection (CSCI) had not received any complaints since the last inspection visit in September 2007. One resident told us that although she did not have any complaints, if she did, she would “go to Theresa or ‘A’” (manager and senior staff). Chestnut House Care Home DS0000067980.V364588.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 16 The manager confirmed that no Protection of Vulnerable Adults (POVA) investigations had taken place since the last inspection visit in September 2007. The manager confirmed that the majority of the staff team had attended POVA training with Rochdale and Manchester training consortiums and discussion with a number of staff on duty and the manager demonstrated that they were clear about what action would be taken in the event of any allegation of abuse being made. The manager also confirmed that she would be arranging refresher training in this subject for those staff who completed this training more than two years ago. Chestnut House Care Home DS0000067980.V364588.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 17 Environment The intended outcomes for Standards 19 – 26 are: 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. Service users live in a safe, well-maintained environment. Service users have access to safe and comfortable indoor and outdoor communal facilities. Service users have sufficient and suitable lavatories and washing facilities. Service users have the specialist equipment they require to maximise their independence. Service users’ own rooms suit their needs. Service users live in safe, comfortable bedrooms with their own possessions around them. Service users live in safe, comfortable surroundings. The home is clean, pleasant and hygienic. The Commission considers Standards 19 and 26 the key standards to be inspected. JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for the following standard(s): 19 and 26 Quality in this outcome area is adequate. This judgement has been made using available evidence, including a visit to this service. The environment was generally clean, tidy and comfortable but, some areas of the home could place residents at risk. EVIDENCE: Since the last inspection visit in September 2007 building work that was taking place in the home had been completed. The laundry area has been converted into a small smoking lounge and the laundry has been transferred to the basement area. Discussion with the owner confirmed that relevant discussions had taken place with the local Fire Officer and Environmental Health Officer regarding these changes. Chestnut House Care Home DS0000067980.V364588.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 18 Those rooms that have been refurbished to include an en-suite toilet area have been decorated and furnished to a high standard and further work was now being carried out to develop facilities that would be appropriate to providing dementia care. Many of the bedrooms seen were in need of re-decoration and, in some cases, in need of furniture being replaced. However, it is acknowledged that since the last inspection visit, the owners have spent money on replacing carpets, chairs, curtains and light fittings in communal areas and have an ongoing programme of re-decoration and refurbishment in place. In the main downstairs lounge we saw that new armchairs had been purchased and, along with the new carpet, light fittings and curtains gave the lounge area a much more comfortable and homely feel. However, we did notice that extension cables were being used in order that household equipment, such as televisions, could be strategically placed. The cable reels need to be positioned safely and away from areas accessible to residents, for example, placed behind the televisions not in front of them and a risk assessment completed. This will help minimise risks to residents from things such as tripping or spilling liquids onto the reels. In two bedrooms identified to the manager there was an odour of urine and the flooring in these rooms must be replaced after an assessment of needs has been carried out. Although the manager confirmed that most staff had completed Infection Control training it was noted that no antibacterial hand wash or paper towels were available in the laundry for staff to use. This could place both residents and staff at risk of infection occurring should staff not follow appropriate infection control guidance when dealing with soiled linen. Chestnut House Care Home DS0000067980.V364588.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 19 Staffing The intended outcomes for Standards 27 – 30 are: 27. 28. 29. 30. Service users’ needs are met by the numbers and skill mix of staff. Service users are in safe hands at all times. Service users are supported and protected by the home’s recruitment policy and practices. Staff are trained and competent to do their jobs. The Commission consider all the above are key standards to be inspected. JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for the following standard(s): 27, 28, 29 and 30 Quality in this outcome area is good. This judgement has been made using available evidence, including a visit to this service. Staffing levels in the home were meeting the needs of the residents and relevant training was being provided. EVIDENCE: Since the last inspection visit in September 2007, a number of new staff have been employed in the home and we checked the records for these people. We found these files to be in order with relevant pre-employment checks in place. Records were also kept to show what training staff have completed, but in some cases these were difficult to assess as the records were not up to date. The manager confirmed that six members of the care staff team currently hold a National Vocational Qualification (NVQ) Level 2 and two at Level 3. At the time of this visit the manager was in the process of reviewing and updating the Personal Development Portfolios for each member of the staff team. These portfolios also contain a copy of the training courses the member of staff has completed, but again, these needed bringing up to date to reflect the actual training each person has completed to date. We also saw on one file that a six monthly joint appraisal was carried out with a plan of action to be reviewed in September 2008. Chestnut House Care Home DS0000067980.V364588.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 20 We looked at the staffing rotas for the current week and these indicated that sufficient care staff was deployed within the home to meet the current health and personal care needs of the residents. Comments from a number of staff spoken to included “Sometimes we could do with another pair of hands, especially when we have more respite residents” and “Sometimes not enough staff”. Should the number of residents increase, (including respite stay residents, then the ratio of care staff to the number of residents should be reviewed and increased where necessary. Staff spoken to during this visit confirmed that they were receiving appropriate training and “plenty of it” and that they felt supported by the manager to carry out their job roles effectively. Residents were complimentary about the staff team working in the home and comments included “Staff are really good” and “Most staff here are really good – especially the manager”. Throughout the inspection, staff were observed spending time with the residents, either engaged in some activities or just chatting with a cup of tea. Chestnut House Care Home DS0000067980.V364588.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 21 Management and Administration The intended outcomes for Standards 31 – 38 are: 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. Service users live in a home which is run and managed by a person who is fit to be in charge, of good character and able to discharge his or her responsibilities fully. Service users benefit from the ethos, leadership and management approach of the home. The home is run in the best interests of service users. Service users are safeguarded by the accounting and financial procedures of the home. Service users’ financial interests are safeguarded. Staff are appropriately supervised. Service users’ rights and best interests are safeguarded by the home’s record keeping, policies and procedures. The health, safety and welfare of service users and staff are promoted and protected. The Commission considers Standards 31, 33, 35 and 38 the key standards to be inspected. JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for the following standard(s): 31, 33, 35 and 38 Quality in this outcome area is good. This judgement has been made using available evidence, including a visit to this service. The manager and owners are experienced and had a clear understanding of where further improvements were needed in order to benefit residents. EVIDENCE: Since the last inspection visit in September 2007 the manager has become registered with the Commission for Social Care Inspection and she confirmed that she is currently working towards obtaining the Registered Manager’s Award (RMA). Chestnut House Care Home DS0000067980.V364588.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 22 Feedback from residents, relatives and staff about the manager was very positive. She was said to be fair, approachable and offered the staff good support. The staff spoken to all said they received regular one to one supervision sessions and felt that the management style was one of openness and mutual respect. In order to find out what the residents and their relatives think about the service being provided by the home the manager sends out satisfaction questionnaires on a six monthly basis. We looked at a number that had been returned in March 2008 and all contained very positive comments about the service being received. A satisfactory system was in place to monitor income and expenditure of residents’ finances. This included an ongoing record for each individual resident with receipts being retained for any expenditure made. We saw that some residents’ finances were being monitored by the use of an independent advocacy service. Before this visit took place the manager returned a completed Annual Quality Assurance Assessment that showed all maintenance and servicing of equipment were in order and up to date. Random sampling was undertaken of these records during our visit to confirm this. Chestnut House Care Home DS0000067980.V364588.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 23 SCORING OF OUTCOMES This page summarises the assessment of the extent to which the National Minimum Standards for Care Homes for Older People have been met and uses the following scale. The scale ranges from: 4 Standard Exceeded 2 Standard Almost Met (Commendable) (Minor Shortfalls) 3 Standard Met 1 Standard Not Met (No Shortfalls) (Major Shortfalls) “X” in the standard met box denotes standard not assessed on this occasion “N/A” in the standard met box denotes standard not applicable CHOICE OF HOME Standard No Score 1 2 3 4 5 6 ENVIRONMENT Standard No Score 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 3 X 3 X X N/A HEALTH AND PERSONAL CARE Standard No Score 7 3 8 3 9 3 10 3 11 X DAILY LIFE AND SOCIAL ACTIVITIES Standard No Score 12 3 13 3 14 3 15 3 COMPLAINTS AND PROTECTION Standard No Score 16 3 17 X 18 3 2 X X X X X X 2 STAFFING Standard No Score 27 3 28 3 29 3 30 3 MANAGEMENT AND ADMINISTRATION Standard No 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 Score 3 X 3 X 3 X X 3 Chestnut House Care Home DS0000067980.V364588.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 24 Are there any outstanding requirements from the last inspection? No STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS This section sets out the actions, which must be taken so that the registered person/s meets the Care Standards Act 2000, Care Homes Regulations 2001 and the National Minimum Standards. The Registered Provider(s) must comply with the given timescales. No. 1 Standard OP19 Regulation 13 (4) (a) & (c) Requirement Where extension cables need to be used in the home they must be positioned safely and away from areas accessible to residents. The carpets/floor covering in the two bedrooms identified to the manager where there was a strong odour of urine must be replaced. Suitable precautions such as placing antibacterial soap and paper towels in the laundry area must be carried out to help minimise the risk of the spread of infection in the home. Timescale for action 16/09/08 2 OP26 13 (4) (c) 25/11/08 3 OP26 13 (3) 16/09/08 Chestnut House Care Home DS0000067980.V364588.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 25 RECOMMENDATIONS These recommendations relate to National Minimum Standards and are seen as good practice for the Registered Provider/s to consider carrying out. No. 1 2 Refer to Standard OP1 OP7 Good Practice Recommendations Information relating to the occasional availability of short stay placements in Chestnut House should be included in the service user guide. When a persons needs change then the care plan should be updated to reflect those changes. Lack of updating care plans with relevant information could lead to inappropriate care being provided. Consideration should be given to developing a formal system for recording any complaints received by the home. Individual staff training records should be kept up to date in order that training needs can easily be assessed. 3 4 OP16 OP30 Chestnut House Care Home DS0000067980.V364588.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 26 Commission for Social Care Inspection Manchester Local office Unit 1, 3rd Floor Tustin Court Port Way Preston PR2 2YQ National Enquiry Line: Telephone: 0845 015 0120 or 0191 233 3323 Textphone: 0845 015 2255 or 0191 233 3588 Email: enquiries@csci.gsi.gov.uk Web: www.csci.org.uk © This report is copyright Commission for Social Care Inspection (CSCI) and may only be used in its entirety. Extracts may not be used or reproduced without the express permission of CSCI Chestnut House Care Home DS0000067980.V364588.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 27 - Please note that this information is included on www.bestcarehome.co.uk under license from the regulator. Re-publishing this information is in breach of the terms of use of that website. Discrete codes and changes have been inserted throughout the textual data shown on the site that will provide incontrovertable proof of copying in the event this information is re-published on other websites. The policy of www.bestcarehome.co.uk is to use all legal avenues to pursue such offenders, including recovery of costs. You have been warned!