Inspection on 30/06/08 for 10 Brampton Court

This inspection was carried out on 30th June 2008.

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

The inspector found no outstanding requirements from the previous inspection report, but made 4 statutory requirements (actions the home must comply with) as a result of this inspection.

Other inspections for this house

10 Brampton Court 15/08/06

10 Brampton Court 18/01/06

10 Brampton Court 14/09/05

10 Brampton Court 07/03/05

10 Brampton Court 08/06/04

10 Brampton Court 17/02/04

Similar services:

2 Perhaver Park

The Vicarage

St George`s

5 Seafield Road

Credence House

Radfords

Honeybourne House

32 Beaumont Way

Extracts from inspection reports are licensed from CQC, this page was updated on 07/11/2008.

CARE HOME ADULTS 18-65 Brampton Court (10) 10 Brampton Court Melksham Wiltshire SN12 6TH Lead Inspector Elaine Barber Unannounced Inspection 30 June and 23rd July 2008 10:50 th Brampton Court (10) DS0000028375.V365017.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 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 Brampton Court (10) DS0000028375.V365017.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 Adults 18-65. 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. Brampton Court (10) DS0000028375.V365017.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 3 SERVICE INFORMATION Name of service Brampton Court (10) Address 10 Brampton Court Melksham Wiltshire SN12 6TH 01225 707233 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) bramptonateam@btinternet.com Ordinary Life Project Association Steve Godwin has applied to become the registered manager Care Home 4 Category(ies) of Learning disability (4) registration, with number of places Brampton Court (10) DS0000028375.V365017.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 4 SERVICE INFORMATION Conditions of registration: Date of last inspection 15th August 2006 Brief Description of the Service: 10 Brampton Court is run by the Ordinary Life Project Association (OLPA). The home is a domestic style, detached property and located in a residential area on the outskirts of Melksham. There are some local facilities although one of the nearby towns is used for most shopping trips and services. The home has its own vehicle for trips out. The accommodation is on two floors. Each person has their own room, one of which is on the ground floor. There is one communal room, which is used as a lounge and a dining area. Patio doors lead on to a garden at the rear of the home. There is a separate kitchen and a large ground floor bathroom, which includes a walk in shower. The people who live at Brampton Court receive support and personal care from a permanent staff team. Fees range from £756 per week. Inspection reports are available in the home and from the CSCI website at: www.csci.org.uk. Brampton Court (10) DS0000028375.V365017.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 1 star. This means the people who use this service experience adequate quality outcomes. We visited 10 Brampton Court on 30th June 2008 when they did not know that we were coming. The manager was present during the inspection. We made another visit to the area office on 23rd July 2008 to look at the recruitment records. The manager sent us an Annual Quality Assurance Assessment (known as the AQAA). This was their own assessment of how they are performing. It also gave us some numerical information about the service. We met with three people who lived in the home. We met with the staff members on duty during the day, to obtain their views about the service. We also observed interactions between the staff members and the people who lived in the home. As part of the inspection process, we sent surveys to the care home for distribution to the people who lived there and their relatives. We received surveys back from four relatives, two staff, one person who lived in the home and three healthcare professionals. We looked at various records and documents during the visit. These included care plans, risk assessments, health care and arrangements for managing medication, activities, complaints, staff recruitment and training. We looked at systems such as health and safety and quality assurance and also the accommodation. During the visit we assessed all key standards. The judgements contained in this report have been made from evidence gathered during the inspection, which included a visit to the service and takes into account the experiences of people who live in the home. What the service does well: There was statement of purpose and this was being updated to reflect staff changes. Each person was given a service user guide in a format suited to their needs. This meant that people, or their representatives, had information about the service so that they would know what to expect from the service. People’s needs were assessed before they moved into the home so that their needs could be met. Brampton Court (10) DS0000028375.V365017.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 6 Each person had a care plan and a person centred plan so that their needs, wishes and goals could be met and they felt well cared for. People were supported to make decisions about their lives and to take risks as part of an independent lifestyle. People had activities that they enjoyed, including attending day services. They had opportunities to use community facilities such as the shops. They kept in contact with their family and friends as they chose. They had a choice of diet and enjoyed their meals. People received personal care and support in ways they preferred to meet their needs. Each person was registered with a GP and saw other health care professionals as they needed. People’s physical and emotional health care needs were met. Staff supported people with their medication. There was a complaints procedure and people were given information about how to complain. People would need support to make a complaint. There was also a protection from abuse policy and information about the local procedures. Staff had received training about prevention from abuse. People were protected from abuse, neglect and self harm. The home was an ordinary house in keeping with other houses in the road. There was a large lounge-dining room and each person had their own bedroom, which was individually decorated and furnished. The home was clean and tidy when we visited. People lived in a homely, comfortable, clean and safe environment suited to their needs. People were supported by staff who were trained and qualified to meet their needs. Staff had the required basic training and specialist training to meet the needs of the people whom they supported. More than half the staff had a National Vocational Qualification at level 2. The manager was appropriately qualified and experienced to manage the home. They had recently applied to become the registered manager. The necessary health and safety measures were in place. As a result people benefited from a home that was on the whole well run and their safety and welfare were generally promoted. There was a quality assurance process. The views of people who lived in the home and their relatives were collected so that the home was run in people’s best interests. What has improved since the last inspection? People’s terms and conditions with the service were being included in their service user guide so that they or their representatives would know what to expect from the service. We made a recommendation at the last inspection that staff should receive refresher training about person centred planning so that people would benefit Brampton Court (10) DS0000028375.V365017.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 7 from consistent planning. This was being addressed and refresher training was being planned. Information about the complaints procedure in the service user guide had been put into simple words and pictures to make it easier for people to understand. A new manager has been appointed from the existing staff group to help provide continuity to people. They had recently applied to become the registered manager. Improvements had been to the accommodation. A new hall, landing and stair carpet had been laid and washable flooring had been provided in one person’s room. The garden patio had been enlarged and new and improved lighting had been installed in the dining area. The manager had taken part in the interview of the newest member of staff to make sure the right person was picked to meet people’s needs. The fire safety measures had been improved by including in the records the names of people who lived in the home and staff who had taken part in fire drills. This meant that the manager could make sure that everyone was familiar with the fire evacuation process. 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. Brampton Court (10) DS0000028375.V365017.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 8 DETAILS OF INSPECTOR FINDINGS CONTENTS Choice of Home (Standards 1–5) Individual Needs and Choices (Standards 6-10) Lifestyle (Standards 11-17) Personal and Healthcare Support (Standards 18-21) Concerns, Complaints and Protection (Standards 22-23) Environment (Standards 24-30) Staffing (Standards 31-36) Conduct and Management of the Home (Standards 37 – 43) Scoring of Outcomes Statutory Requirements Identified During the Inspection Brampton Court (10) DS0000028375.V365017.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 9 Choice of Home The intended outcomes for Standards 1 – 5 are: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Prospective service users have the information they need to make an informed choice about where to live. Prospective users’ individual aspirations and needs are assessed. Prospective service users know that the home that they will choose will meet their needs and aspirations. Prospective service users have an opportunity to visit and to “test drive” the home. Each service user has an individual written contract or statement of terms and conditions with the home. The Commission consider Standard 2 the key standard to be inspected. JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for the following standard(s): 1, 2, 5 Quality in this outcome area is good. There was statement of purpose and each person was given a service user guide in a format suited to their needs. This meant that people had information about the service so that they or their representatives would know what to expect from the service. People’s needs were assessed before they moved into the home so that their needs could be met. This judgement has been made using available evidence including a visit to this service. EVIDENCE: There was a statement of purpose. This was being amended to reflect a change of manager and new staff who had been employed. It had all the required information including the complaints procedure and how to contact CSCI. There was also a service user guide. Each person had their own copy in a format, which suited their needs. It included the terms and conditions, the fees and items not covered by the fees. The four relatives who completed surveys said that they had enough information about the home to make decisions. Brampton Court (10) DS0000028375.V365017.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 10 Each service user guide also contained a license agreement for each person and their fees. However, these license agreements had not been signed by the people who lived Brampton Court or their representatives to show that they were in agreement with them. No new people had moved into the home since the last inspection. People’s needs had been assessed before they moved into the home. In the AQAA, the manager told us that any new people would have a community care assessment before they moved in. Brampton Court (10) DS0000028375.V365017.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 11 Individual Needs and Choices The intended outcomes for Standards 6 – 10 are: 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. Service users know their assessed and changing needs and personal goals are reflected in their individual Plan. Service users make decisions about their lives with assistance as needed. Service users are consulted on, and participate in, all aspects of life in the home. Service users are supported to take risks as part of an independent lifestyle. Service users know that information about them is handled appropriately, and that their confidences are kept. The Commission considers Standards 6, 7 and 9 the key standards to be inspected. JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for the following standard(s): 6, 7, 9 Quality in this outcome area is good. Each person had a care plan and a person centred plan so that their needs, wishes and goals could be met and they felt well cared for. People were supported to make decisions about their lives and to take risks as part of an independent lifestyle. This judgement has been made using available evidence including a visit to this service. EVIDENCE: We looked at the care plan files for all three people who lived in the home. Each contained a record sheet, which showed that they had been reviewed at regular intervals. This record also showed where any additions to the care plan had been made. People needed full support from the staff team to manage all aspects of their lives and this has been carefully recorded. Each person had a description of Brampton Court (10) DS0000028375.V365017.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 12 their daily routine and how they were supported with managing personal care, communication, finances, their culture and faith. The care plans were reviewed every six months and updated if need be. Four relatives said in their surveys that the home always met the needs of their relative. Each person also had a person centred plan which included their individual goals in relation to communication, making choices, education, occupation, community participation, dignity, physical well being, emotional well being, psychological needs, leisure, relationships and spirituality. We made a recommendation at the last inspection that staff should receive refresher training about person centred planning so that people would benefit from consistent planning. This was being addressed and refresher training was being planned. The daily diaries showed what people did each day. This included any choices they may have made, any behaviour they might have shown and activities undertaken, both inside and outside of the home. The staff talked about how they helped people to make choices. For example they showed people different foods so that they could decide what to eat. They showed them a choice of colours for their rooms based on their likes and dislikes. Information about how people made choices was recorded in their care plans and person centred plans. During our visit we observed people making choices about where to spend their time, within the house, or the garden. One person completed a survey with help from someone at the day service. They said that they could do what they wanted during the day, the evening and at weekends. They also said that they liked to go out. The four relatives said in their surveys that people were always supported to live the life they chose. There was a separate risk assessment file and this identified risks that affected individual people and those that affected the whole household. Copies of each person’s risk assessments were kept in their personal file. There was a system for monitoring the risks. Brampton Court (10) DS0000028375.V365017.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 13 Lifestyle The intended outcomes for Standards 11 - 17 are: 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. Service users have opportunities for personal development. Service users are able to take part in age, peer and culturally appropriate activities. Service users are part of the local community. Service users engage in appropriate leisure activities. Service users have appropriate personal, family and sexual relationships. Service users’ rights are respected and responsibilities recognised in their daily lives. Service users are offered a healthy diet and enjoy their meals and mealtimes. The Commission considers Standards 12, 13, 15, 16 and 17 the key standards to be inspected. JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for the following standard(s): 12, 13, 15, 16, 17 Quality in this outcome area is generally good. People had activities that they enjoyed, including attending day services. They had opportunities to use community facilities such as the shops. They kept in contact with their family and friends as they chose. They had a choice of diet and enjoyed their meals. The records did not show whether people were receiving a balanced diet. This judgement has been made using available evidence including a visit to this service. EVIDENCE: We saw that information about people’s spirituality was recorded in their care plans and person centred plans. There was also information about people’s day time activities. Each person had several daytime activities. One person attended a day service five days a week. The other two people attended this day service on a sessional basis. They had one to one support from staff when they were not at their day service. On the day of our visit one of these people Brampton Court (10) DS0000028375.V365017.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 14 was at the day service while the other went shopping with staff. In the afternoon the other person went to the day service and the first person went for a walk with staff. People were due to go on holiday at the OLPA caravan, where they were supported by staff. The manager told us that this had proved to be very successful, as routine and familiarity was important to the people who lived in the home. Staff said that visitors were welcome to the home and family may visit at any time. There was another OLPA home close by and people could meet other people form there and meet other friends at their day services. The manager told us that people who had family kept in contact with their family. Staff took one person to see their sister every two months. The relatives who completed surveys said that the home helped their relative to keep in touch with them. We saw records in the care plans describing how people had access to the phone or post, and the reasons why they may not have keys to the home. We looked at the menu. It did not provide sufficient information about the meals being served. For example it did not show what fruit and vegetables were being served. There were records of the meals each person had eaten. There were also records of how people had made choices of food. The manager and staff told us that people were offered a choice of meals. At lunch time during our visit, we saw people being offered a choice of fillings for their sandwiches. Brampton Court (10) DS0000028375.V365017.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 15 Personal and Healthcare Support The intended outcomes for Standards 18 - 21 are: 18. 19. 20. 21. Service users receive personal support in the way they prefer and require. Service users’ physical and emotional health needs are met. Service users retain, administer and control their own medication where appropriate, and are protected by the home’s policies and procedures for dealing with medicines. The ageing, illness and death of a service user are handled with respect and as the individual would wish. The Commission considers Standards 18, 19, and 20 the key standards to be inspected. JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for the following standard(s): 18, 19, 20 Quality in this outcome area is good. People received personal care and support in ways they preferred to meet their needs. People’s physical and emotional health care needs were met. People were generally protected by the systems for managing medication. This judgement has been made using available evidence including a visit to this service. EVIDENCE: We saw that the care plans described how people liked to be supported. Records were kept of appointments with health care professionals. These showed that people had appointments with their GP’s, a psychiatrist, the dentist and chiropodist. People also had various health checks and flu vaccinations. Three health care professionals told us in their surveys that people’s health care needs were met by the home. They also said that staff seek advice about how to manage and improve people’s health care needs, and act upon the advice. There was a record in each person’s file of any medication that they took. There was also a record of each person’s capacity to consent to treatment. A record was kept of all medication ordered, received into the home, Brampton Court (10) DS0000028375.V365017.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 16 administered to people and returned to the pharmacy. We noted that there had been some handwritten changes to the medication administration records. The member of staff who made the changes had not signed the record although the changes were recorded in the notes of appointments with healthcare professionals. There was a policy about medication. Medication was stored in a locked cupboard. There were no controlled drugs. The medication cupboard did not meet the requirements for the storage of controlled drugs. Staff received training about medication. The manager told us that the latest update was due in July. We observed a staff member giving medication to two people. They put the medication for each person into a separate pot. Then they put the two pots together on to a tray with drinks of water and took them to the people and gave them the medication. We discussed this practice with the manager as it provides a risk of giving the wrong medication to a person. The manager said that staff know which medication belongs to which person. Brampton Court (10) DS0000028375.V365017.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 17 Concerns, Complaints and Protection The intended outcomes for Standards 22 – 23 are: 22. 23. Service users feel their views are listened to and acted on. Service users are protected from abuse, neglect and self-harm. The Commission considers Standards 22, and 23 the key standards to be inspected. JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for the following standard(s): 22, 23 Quality in this outcome area is good. People’s complaints would be taken seriously and acted upon. People were protected from abuse, neglect and self harm. This judgement has been made using available evidence including a visit to this service. EVIDENCE: We saw information about how to make a complaint in the statement of purpose and service user guide. We also saw that there was a complaints procedure with words and pictures. Each person had a stamped addressed postcard to the CSCI in their bedrooms, for them to use if they needed to. There had been no complaints since the last inspection. We made a recommendation at the last inspection that the organisation should devise methods for how it intends to meet the needs of people who may not be able to use the current complaint procedure due to their communication needs. Progress had been made towards meeting this. Information about the complaints procedure in the service user guide had been put into simple words and pictures. There was guidance in the home about adult protection, which was linked to the Wiltshire and Swindon ‘No Secrets’ guidance. We saw a booklet on the notice board. The training records showed that all staff had received training about protection from abuse and one relief member of staff needed an update. At the last inspection we recommended that the manager attended an external Brampton Court (10) DS0000028375.V365017.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 18 adult protection training course. They had received training in September 2007. There had been no referrals to the adult protection team. There were additional policies and procedures on whistle blowing, bullying and harassment and these had been reviewed. There were also separate descriptions of how people received support with managing their money. People had signed a form to confirm that they wanted staff to help them with their money. Records were kept of financial transactions when staff were helping people with their money. People signed the records when they had been given money. Receipts were kept. Brampton Court (10) DS0000028375.V365017.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 19 Environment The intended outcomes for Standards 24 – 30 are: 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. Service users live in a homely, comfortable and safe environment. Service users’ bedrooms suit their needs and lifestyles. Service users’ bedrooms promote their independence. Service users’ toilets and bathrooms provide sufficient privacy and meet their individual needs. Shared spaces complement and supplement service users’ individual rooms. Service users have the specialist equipment they require to maximise their independence. The home is clean and hygienic. The Commission considers Standards 24, and 30 the key standards to be inspected. JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for the following standard(s): 24, 30 Quality in this outcome area is good. People lived in a homely, comfortable, clean and safe environment. This judgement has been made using available evidence including a visit to this service. EVIDENCE: The home was in keeping with other houses in the street and it was an ordinary house. When we visited people were sitting in the lounge and each had their own individual chair. One of the chairs had a special adaptation to support the person’s posture. There was a dining area in the lounge and each person had a special chair to support them sitting at the table. Brampton Court (10) DS0000028375.V365017.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 20 There were patio doors leading to a sheltered garden. A part of the garden had a raised bed, which provided added depth and interest. There was a patio with a gazebo and people could sit outside in the garden, as they chose. Each person had their own room, but they all preferred to spend time in the lounge together, rather than to sit in their own rooms. Each room was individually decorated, clean and comfortable. There were three bedrooms for people on the first floor as well as a staff sleep in room. There was one vacant bedroom on the ground floor. There was also a large walk in shower room with a toilet and hand washbasin on the ground floor. This has been decorated, tiled and finished to a high standard. The previous toilet had been turned into a utility room and storage room for medication. The cleaning items were stored here. The laundry facilities were sufficient for the size of the home and laundry was not carried through areas where food was prepared or eaten. Since the last inspection a new hall, landing and stair carpet had been laid and washable flooring had been provided in one person’s room. The garden patio had been enlarged and new and improved lighting had been installed in the dining area. The home was clean, tidy and smelled fresh on the day of the visit. Brampton Court (10) DS0000028375.V365017.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 21 Staffing The intended outcomes for Standards 31 – 36 are: 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. Service users benefit from clarity of staff roles and responsibilities. Service users are supported by competent and qualified staff. Service users are supported by an effective staff team. Service users are supported and protected by the home’s recruitment policy and practices. Service users’ individual and joint needs are met by appropriately trained staff. Service users benefit from well supported and supervised staff. The Commission considers Standards 32, 34 and 35 the key standards to be inspected. JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for the following standard(s): 32, 33, 34, 35 Quality in this outcome area is adequate. People were supported by sufficient staff who were trained and qualified to meet their needs. People were not protected by the recruitment practices. This judgement has been made using available evidence including a visit to this service. EVIDENCE: We looked at the staff rota. This showed that there were usually two staff on duty in the day from 9 am until 7pm. One member of staff slept in at night. On the day of our visit there were two members of staff and the manager on duty because one new member of staff had just started and was working under supervision. One health professional who completed a survey stated that care staff were regularly rotated and this seemed to work against the needs of people. We did not find any other evidence to support this. The manager told us that there were three full time members of staff, one part time and one relief member of staff. The relief member of staff had a National Brampton Court (10) DS0000028375.V365017.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 22 Vocational Qualification (NVQ) at level two. One member of permanent staff had NVQ level two and was working towards level three. One was working towards NVQ level 2 and the new member of staff had achieved NVQ level 2 in their previous job. One member of staff had been recruited since the last inspection. The manager told us that their recruitment checks were not kept in the home. They were kept at head office. There was a record of the checks that had been carried out. When we telephoned head office a few days after the inspection, to arrange to see the records, we were told that the human resources manager, who looked after these records, had just gone on leave and would not be back for two weeks. We were also told that no-one else had access to these records so that we could inspect them. We visited the office to inspect the recruitment records on 23rd July 2008. There was a recruitment checklist with dates of when checks were received. The member of staff had filled in an application form. This contained a declaration that they had no convictions and a medical questionnaire. The checklist stated that the member of staff started work on 2nd June 2008. One written reference was dated 25th June 2008. There was a record of a second reference received over the telephone on 25th June 2008. A check of the Protection of Vulnerable Adults (POVA) list was received on 9th June 2008. The Criminal Records Bureau (CRB) check was received on 16th June 2008. The person therefore started work without a check of the POVA list, CRB or two written references. It was not clear from the checklist when the member of staff started to work with people. Proof of identity had been obtained with a copy of their birth certificate and driving license. Proof of qualifications, an employment history and verification of why they left their previous employment had also been obtained. When we visited the home on 30th June the checklist in the home stated that the POVA first check was received on 9th June, the CRB was received on 16th June and only one written reference had been received on 24th June 2008. It also showed that they started work on 2nd June before any of the checks were received. The member of staff said that they had been working with another member of staff at all times. We saw that they were working with another member of staff on the day of our visit. We made a recommendation at the last inspection that the manager should take part in interviewing for new staff. This had been addressed. The manager told us that they had taken part in the interview of the newest member of staff to make sure the right person was picked to meet people’s needs. We looked at the record of training for all staff. This showed that staff received training in manual handling, fire safety, first aid, food hygiene, Brampton Court (10) DS0000028375.V365017.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 23 infection control, medication, abuse awareness, risk assessment COSHH and person centred planning. Two staff who completed surveys said that they had training that was relevant to their role, helped them to understand people’s individual needs and kept them up to date with new ways of working. Three health professionals who completed surveys said that staff had the right skills and experience to meet people’s social and health care needs. Brampton Court (10) DS0000028375.V365017.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 24 Conduct and Management of the Home The intended outcomes for Standards 37 – 43 are: 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. Service users benefit from a well run home. Service users benefit from the ethos, leadership and management approach of the home. Service users are confident their views underpin all self-monitoring, review and development by the home. Service users’ rights and best interests are safeguarded by the home’s policies and procedures. 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 are promoted and protected. Service users benefit from competent and accountable management of the service. The Commission considers Standards 37, 39, and 42 the key standards to be inspected. JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for the following standard(s): 37, 39, 42 Quality in this outcome area is adequate. People were generally benefiting from a well run home. Their safety and welfare were not wholly promoted. People were contributing to a review of quality in the home so that the home was run in their best interests. This judgement has been made using available evidence including a visit to this service. EVIDENCE: The new manager had a National Vocational Qualification (NVQ) level 3 in care, an NVQ level 4 in health and social care and the Registered Managers Award. They also had training about abuse awareness, medication, health and safety, food hygiene, manual handling, fire training and first aid. The manager had recently applied to become the registered manager but they had not yet been approved as a fit person to manage the home. Brampton Court (10) DS0000028375.V365017.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 25 The organisation have some quality assurance policies and procedures, which describe the following: the Annual General Meeting, service users questionnaires, tenants meetings, managers and team meetings, Regulation 26 visits, external inspections and the cross referencing of standards. The organisation had devised a system for gathering the views of service users, relatives and stakeholders. Managers sent questionnaires to gather information about people’s views on the quality of the service. The form included a section for comments and for people to think about one thing the organisation could do better. We made a requirement at the last inspection that the Commission must be supplied with a copy of the report on the latest quality review. This had been addressed. A report of the findings had been produced. Further questionnaires had been sent and a new development plan was being produced for 2008-2009. There was a health and safety policy. We looked at the health and safety measures. There were individual and generic risk assessments. We saw that radiators were covered according the assessment of risk to people. The temperature of the hot water was regulated at 43 degrees. Windows were restricted. We saw the fire log book which recorded when all the checks of the fire safety measures were made. We noted that all the appropriate checks were being carried out and staff were receiving fire instruction. We also noted that following a recommendation at the last inspection when a fire drill took place, the names of staff and people who took part, were recorded. There was a fire risk assessment. There also was information about Control of Substances Hazardous to Health (COSHH). Portable appliances were tested. There was a gas safety certificate and the boiler was serviced. We established in the previous section that people’s welfare was not promoted by the recruitment practices. Brampton Court (10) DS0000028375.V365017.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 26 SCORING OF OUTCOMES This page summarises the assessment of the extent to which the National Minimum Standards for Care Homes for Adults 18-65 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 3 2 3 3 X 4 2 5 X INDIVIDUAL NEEDS AND CHOICES Standard No 6 7 8 9 10 Score CONCERNS AND COMPLAINTS Standard No Score 22 3 23 3 ENVIRONMENT Standard No Score 24 3 25 X 26 X 27 X 28 X 29 X 30 3 STAFFING Standard No Score 31 X 32 3 33 3 34 1 35 3 36 X CONDUCT AND MANAGEMENT OF THE HOME Standard No 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 Score 3 3 X 3 X LIFESTYLES Standard No Score 11 X 12 3 13 3 14 X 15 3 16 3 17 2 PERSONAL AND HEALTHCARE SUPPORT Standard No 18 19 20 21 Score 3 3 2 X 2 X 3 X X 3 X Brampton Court (10) DS0000028375.V365017.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 27 NO Are there any outstanding requirements from the last inspection? 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 YA17 Regulation 17 (2) Schedule 4 (13) 13 (2) Requirement The records of food provided to people must include sufficient detail to show whether people are receiving their nutritional requirements. The practice of putting medication for more than one person at a time into pots and taking the pots to people before giving them the medication must stop. All medication must be given to people on an individual basis. All the required recruitment checks, two written references and a Criminal Records Bureau check and a Protection of Vulnerable Adults Check must be received before new staff start work. The recruitment records must at all times be available for inspection so that we can establish whether people are at risk. Timescale for action 30/06/08 2. YA20 30/06/08 3. YA34 19 30/06/08 4. YA34 17 (3) a Schedule 4 30/06/08 Brampton Court (10) DS0000028375.V365017.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 28 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. Refer to Standard YA5 Good Practice Recommendations The license agreements should be signed by the person concerned, or a representative, to show that they are in agreement to them and their interests are protected. A cupboard, which complies with the requirements for the storage of controlled drugs in care homes, should be obtained so that if people are prescribed controlled drugs they can be stored safely. When a member of staff makes a written addition to the medication administration records they should sign the record and a second member of staff should witness the addition and sign the record to confirm that it is correct. 2. YA20 3. YA20 Brampton Court (10) DS0000028375.V365017.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 29 Commission for Social Care Inspection South West Colston 33 33 Colston Avenue Bristol BS1 4UA 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 Brampton Court (10) DS0000028375.V365017.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 30 - 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!