Inspection on 05/07/06 for 275a Rutland Road

This inspection was carried out on 5th July 2006.

CSCI has not published a star rating for this report, though using similar criteria we estimate that the report is Good. The way we rate inspection reports is consistent for all houses, though please be aware that this may be different from an official CSCI judgement.

The inspector found there to be outstanding requirements from the previous inspection report. These are things the inspector asked to be changed, but found they had not done. The inspector also made 8 statutory requirements (actions the home must comply with) as a result of this inspection.

Other inspections for this house

275a Rutland Road 06/07/07

275a Rutland Road 21/02/06

Similar services:

Larch Avenue

Alderson Road 12

Cranworth Close Registered Care Home

Pennine Camphill

Whitwood House

Whitwood Hall

The Cornerstone

John Street Nursing Home

Extracts from inspection reports are licensed from CQC, this page was updated on 08/07/2008.

CARE HOME ADULTS 18-65 275a Rutland Road 275 Rutland Road Pitsmoor Sheffield S3 9PZ Lead Inspector Stuart Hannay Key Unannounced Inspection 5 and 10th July 2006 09:15 th 275a Rutland Road DS0000062380.V301748.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 275a Rutland Road DS0000062380.V301748.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. 275a Rutland Road DS0000062380.V301748.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 3 SERVICE INFORMATION Name of service 275a Rutland Road Address 275 Rutland Road Pitsmoor Sheffield S3 9PZ 01142 734990 01142 770940 none 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) Sheffield City Council - Disabilities Services Division Mr Steven Danford Care Home 5 Category(ies) of Learning disability (5) registration, with number of places 275a Rutland Road DS0000062380.V301748.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 4 SERVICE INFORMATION Conditions of registration: Date of last inspection 21st February 2006 Brief Description of the Service: Rutland Road is a care home providing short-term care to adults with learning disabilities. It is in a residential area of Sheffield with good access to public services and amenities (e.g. bus services, shops, libraries and pubs). Accommodation is on two floors and consists of two bedrooms, a small lounge and dining kitchen area on the ground floor. On the second floor there are a further three bedrooms. There are sufficient toilet and bathing facilities. A range of fees is charged for the service dependent on the service users’ individual care package and their age. Service users pay between £72.05 and £116.10 per week towards the cost of their care. There is written information for potential service users and their relatives. 275a Rutland Road DS0000062380.V301748.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 5 SUMMARY This is an overview of what the inspector found during the inspection. The inspection took place over two days. The first visit lasted for approximately five hours and the second visit, which was made to the administrative office of the home on a separate site, lasted for two hours. On the first day there was one service user receiving respite care and the inspector met with him prior to his attending his day placement. Two ‘Outreach Workers’ were interviewed and the manager and assistant manager attended for part of the inspection. The following records were checked: the staffing rota, fire training, fire drills, health and safety certificates and three service users’ care plans. An inspection was made of the buildings and the gardens. During the second visit a number of records were checked, including recruitment records and the Statement of Purpose. Three relatives were interviewed by telephone after the inspection. What the service does well: The home is registered to provide respite for 5 service users with learning disabilities. On the day of the inspection, there was only one service user at the home. He said that the staff were nice and that he liked coming to the home for respite. He appeared comfortable and relaxed in the home, making use of the communal areas and chatting with the staff. Staff were friendly and respectful towards him. The particular service user had visited the home on previous occasions. Routines appeared to be flexible and staff said that service users were supported to attend their day placements but generally they were free to rise and go to bed when they wished. There is one member of staff on duty at all times and an extra staff hours are available to help service users take part in social activities or to provide extra care at the home if necessary. The staff on duty had worked at the home for some time and although there are a large number of people who receive respite at the home on a regular basis, they could speak in detail of the differing needs of service users. They had received statutory training and training relating to understanding the needs of the service users. They received professional supervision and generally felt that their managers were supportive. Staff are responsible for the cleaning and the house was clean and tidy. Effort has been taken to ensure that there is a ‘homely’ feel to the building, including the bedrooms, which were pleasantly decorated and furnished. The home has complaints procedures and staff interviewed were aware of the adult protection procedures. 275a Rutland Road DS0000062380.V301748.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 6 There were no obvious health and safety hazards noted on the day of the inspection and the fire alarm and emergency lighting systems had been regularly tested and serviced. Relatives spoken with said they thought the service was very good, that their relatives were well cared for and that the staff communicated well with the service users. They said that they were kept informed of any problems whilst their relative was in respite. 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. 275a Rutland Road DS0000062380.V301748.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 7 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 275a Rutland Road DS0000062380.V301748.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 8 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 at least once during a 12 month period. JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for the following standard(s): 1, 2 and 3. Quality in this outcome area is good. This judgement has been made using available evidence including a visit to this service. Written information about the service was available for potential service users and their relatives. They are able to visit prior to staying overnight to help them decide if they wish to use the service. Assessments had been made of the service users to ensure that the service is suitable and their needs could be met. EVIDENCE: Assessments of service users’ needs had been made in the four service users’ plans that were checked. Staff interviews indicated that the staff had good knowledge of the service users needs. The one service user present on the day of the inspection appeared settled and relaxed and said that he liked to come to the home. The Statement of Purpose and the Service user’s Guide contained information, which would enable potential service users and their relatives to decide if the service was appropriate for them. Staff said that there are occasionally ‘emergency’ admissions from the community and full assessments could not be provided straightaway, however most of the admissions were planned with the service users and their relatives. 275a Rutland Road DS0000062380.V301748.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 9 The parents of three people who use the service were interviewed by telephone and all said that the service was good and the staff were well able to meet the needs of their relatives. Two of the families had had respite with social services for a number of years and felt that the current service was the best that they had received so far. 275a Rutland Road DS0000062380.V301748.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 10 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 at least once during a 12 month period. JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for the following standard(s): 6, 7, 9 and 10. Quality in this outcome area is adequate. This judgement has been made using available evidence including a visit to this service. All the service users had a care plan. These identified what support they needed whilst at the home and identified how to reduce the risk of harm to the service users. Service users had choice of how they spent their time whilst at the home and activities and routines were based around their preferences. The staff need to transfer all the care plans into the new format to ensure that service users needs are consistently met. The plans also need to be regularly reviewed to ensure that information about service users is up-to-date and the relevant care is being provided. EVIDENCE: Three service users’ plans were checked in detail. The care plans identified what assistance the service users needed and what staff needed to do to meet these needs. 275a Rutland Road DS0000062380.V301748.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 11 The home is in the process of implementing a new care planning system to ensure that all aspects of the service users’ care is assessed and reviewed. The risk assessments were comprehensive and reviewed up-to-date. Not all the care plans had yet been transferred into the new format and there were therefore some inconsistencies in the information provided. Staff felt that some areas of the paperwork were repetitive in the new format and, whilst it is difficult to gauge the success of the new system at such an early stage, the home needs to ensure that the format is geared up to the needs of the service users receiving respite care. The notes recorded about the service users whilst at the home were comprehensive. However the staff need to ensure that this information (the risk assessments and the guidance on health, personal, social and emotional care) is reviewed at regular intervals to ensure it is still relevant. These reviews are required in addition to the reviews completed by other professionals involved with the service users, such as social workers. 275a Rutland Road DS0000062380.V301748.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 12 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 at least once during a 12 month period. JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for the following standard(s): 12, 13, 15, 16 and 17. Quality in this outcome area is good. This judgement has been made using available evidence including a visit to this service. Staff members support the service users in attending social and occupational activities outside of the home. Families and friends can visit the home during the respite period if they wish. There was information about service users dietary needs in their care plans. There is a contract for service users which outlines their rights and their responsibilities whilst at the home. EVIDENCE: On the day of the inspection the service user was attending a day centre and staff said that most people who have respite at the home continue to attend their day services throughout their stay. Social activities take place mostly in the evenings and weekends and include trips to the cinema, the pub and bowling. Staff said that the increased staffing hours had enabled them to be more flexible with the provision of activities. Service users’ care plans contained information about their preferred activities and what support they needed to be able to do them. 275a Rutland Road DS0000062380.V301748.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 13 Staff said that the service users have relaxed routines whilst at the home and can generally choose when to go to bed and when to get up, although they said that they are encouraged to go to bed at a reasonable time if they have to attend their day services on the following day. The one service user at the home on the day of the inspection appeared relaxed and ‘at home’. He made himself a drink and used the communal areas of the home as he wished, taking time to sit in the lounge and talk with the inspector. He talked with the staff in a relaxed and friendly way and clearly felt comfortable in their presence. He told the inspector that he was going out to attend his day centre and was waiting for the transport to arrive and that he liked it at the home. He said that the staff were ‘nice to me’. A written contract in each of the care plans identified the service users’ rights and responsibilities whilst at the home. Service users were also encouraged to maintain living skills during their stay and, in line with their abilities, were involved in cleaning and cooking. The service users’ plans checked contained information about their preferred foods and any special dietary needs. Meals were prepared by the staff and both staff interviewed said that they had up-to-date food hygiene training. The parents of three service users said that their relatives said that they liked the food at the home. 275a Rutland Road DS0000062380.V301748.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 14 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 at least once during a 12 month period. JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for the following standard(s): 18, 19 and 20. Quality in this outcome area is adequate. This judgement has been made using available evidence including a visit to this service. Service users’ plans identified what personal care they needed and how it should be provided in line with their personal preferences. The care plans included on the service users’ physical and emotional needs and described how staff could ensure these needs were met. Service users can maintain and administer their own medication if assessed as safe to do so. The home needs to obtain advice on its storage of service users’ medication and there is a need to improve the recording of medication brought into the home. Better MAR sheets are needed to reduce the risk of the wrong medication being given to service users. EVIDENCE: The care staff interviewed could describe in detail how they provided care for individual service users and how to get the best responses from them. Three service users’ care plans checked identified how they would prefer to have personal care provided. This included such information as to what time they wished to get up and whether they would like a bath or a shower. The parents of three service users said that they were satisfied that the personal care 275a Rutland Road DS0000062380.V301748.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 15 needs of their relatives were met in a sensitive and thorough manner. One commented that ‘my daughter always comes home clean and well-presented’. The service user present at the home on the day of the inspection did not take any medication. Staff said that the vast majority of people who stay at the home have been assessed as not being able to look after their own medication, although a potential new service user would be looking after her tablets. Lockable facilities were available in all the bedrooms for the storage of medication. The nature of the service means that many service users bring their own medication into the home. The medication was checked to ensure that all the information on the labels is accurate and the packaging was clear. When staff are to be responsible for the medication during the service user’s stay, the information on the prescription labels is copied onto the Medication Administration Record sheets by hand. This information was legible but a lack of space on the Medication Administration Record sheets meant that there was not enough space to copy out all the prescription information and there was a risk of the wrong amount of medication being administered. The form did not allow for the counting in and out of medicines into the home and there was insufficient room for the person making the entry to sign. The form did not include the codes to record whether medication had been omitted, withheld or refused. Where possible, the handwritten entries should be checked and countersigned by a witness to reduce the risk of errors. However, it is acknowledged that there is usually only one person on duty when service users are admitted. During the inspection, the manager obtained a new format, which included more space for the recording of medication. The format also included the relevant codes for recording the omission, withholding and refusal of medication. There was also space to record the amount of medication brought into the home. The storage of medication and the recording system should be checked by a registered pharmacist. 275a Rutland Road DS0000062380.V301748.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 16 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 at least once during a 12 month period. JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for the following standard(s): 22 and 23. Quality in this outcome area is good. This judgement has been made using available evidence including a visit to this service. The home had a complaints procedure that is clear and accessible and includes all the required information to allow service users and their advocates to raise concerns. Adult protection policies and procedures are in place and staff received training in identifying and reporting any issues; this reduces the risk to vulnerable service users. EVIDENCE: The ‘complaints and complements’ records showed that no complaints had been received about the service. The manager said that service users and their relatives were encouraged to raise any concerns. The parents of three service users who were interviewed said that that they would feel comfortable in raising concerns on behalf of the service users if they felt this was necessary. They were aware there was a formal system for raising complaints. All said that they would be able to approach the manager or any of the staff to discuss any problems. Staff had undertaken training in the recognition and reporting of abuse and one staff member had been involved in an adult protection strategy meeting regarding concerns about a service user (in their permanent placement, not whilst at the home). 275a Rutland Road DS0000062380.V301748.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 17 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 at least once during a 12 month period. JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for the following standard(s): 24, 28 and 30. Quality in this outcome area is good. This judgement has been made using available evidence including a visit to this service. The home was clean, comfortable and well maintained ensuring that the service users lived in a pleasant environment. They had access to a good range of communal and private space allowing for a homely, non-institutional atmosphere. Work is needed to improve the garden areas so that the service users can have access to outside areas. EVIDENCE: The rooms were decorated to a good standard and although, due to the nature of the service they could not be highly personalised, were homely in appearance. Service users were able to bring small personal items such as CD players and photographs for the duration of the stay. There was room to store clothing and the rooms were comfortably furnished. They contained a television and a video. The communal areas were domestic in scale and all the relatives interviewed commented on how important this was to the service users as it helped them 275a Rutland Road DS0000062380.V301748.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 18 to relax when at the home. One commented that previous respite care within a larger setting had sometimes been distressing for their relative. The garden areas of the home need some attention. There was a large garden area but much of it was unusable for the service users. There is a small patio area but the flagstones were uneven and the area needed weeding. One relative interviewed said that her ‘only grumble’ with the home was the lack of facilities in the garden to allow people to sit comfortably outside. 275a Rutland Road DS0000062380.V301748.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 19 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 at least once during a 12 month period. JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for the following standard(s): 32, 34 and 35. Quality in this outcome area is good. This judgement has been made using available evidence including a visit to this service. Staff at the home had undertaken appropriate training and were deployed in sufficient numbers to meet the needs of the service users. Checks were made on staff before they started work at the home to ensure that vulnerable people were protected. Staff receive regular professional supervision from their line managers to ensure that they have the skills, training and aptitude to provide support to service users. EVIDENCE: Staff interviewed said that there is one staff member on duty at all times, including one waking night staff. The rotas checked confirmed this. There were staffing hours available to ensure that two staff could be deployed for certain periods when necessary. The staff interviewed said that some service users needed two staff for some tasks and that this was taken into consideration when planning the rotas. Agency staff are used to cover shifts if necessary; given the nature of the service, the manager said that they try to use the same agency staff who are familiar with the service and the service users. The recruitment records of two staff members were checked and they contained written references and evidence of CRB (Criminal Records Bureau) 275a Rutland Road DS0000062380.V301748.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 20 checks and POVA (Protection of Vulnerable Adults) checks. Checks had been made of the employment histories, however, the application forms were not stored at the home and could not be checked. Staff had undertaken statutory training, such as manual handling, fire safety and food hygiene. Staff had also had training in understanding the needs of the service users and had regular professional supervision meetings with their line manager in which they discussed work and training issues. 275a Rutland Road DS0000062380.V301748.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 21 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 at least once during a 12 month period. JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for the following standard(s): 37, 39 and 42. Quality in this outcome area is good. This judgement has been made using available evidence including a visit to this service. The staff interviewed were knowledgeable about the service users and the values of the organisation, ensuring that service users rights are promoted and their opinions considered. Effective health and safety systems were in place to minimise the risk to service users and staff. The building was safe without any obvious risks to service users. The registered persons need to provide a monthly report on the service to demonstrate that they are aware of how the service users are being cared for. EVIDENCE: The registered manager has worked with people with learning disabilities for many years and has a qualification in management (NVQ Level 4). Staff said that he was supportive and approachable and relatives spoken with said they would have no hesitation in speaking to him about any aspect of the care. Staff said that although the manager is not based exclusively at the home, he is 275a Rutland Road DS0000062380.V301748.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 22 easily contactable. They did say that ‘at times’ they would prefer that he was based at the home for general support – his office is based at another respite service – however, they said there were also regular visits from the assistant manager of the service. The relatives felt that the wishes of the service users were taken into consideration and that the service users were valued by the home. There was certification in place to show that the major systems, including fire, emergency lighting and gas safety systems had been checked in the previous 12 months. Fire alarms had been tested on a regular basis and a record kept of this. Fire training was well documented and all staff on the rota had received recent updated training. Fire drills were held regularly and fire equipment had been serviced. The home’s line manager had visited the home and made provided comprehensive reports about the quality of the service, however she had not made the visits on a monthly basis. There were no obvious hazards noted on the day of the inspection in the building 275a Rutland Road DS0000062380.V301748.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 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 3 4 X 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 2 29 X 30 3 STAFFING Standard No Score 31 X 32 3 33 X 34 2 35 3 36 3 CONDUCT AND MANAGEMENT OF THE HOME Standard No 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 Score 2 3 3 3 X LIFESTYLES Standard No Score 11 X 12 3 13 3 14 X 15 3 16 3 17 X PERSONAL AND HEALTHCARE SUPPORT Standard No 18 19 20 21 Score 3 3 2 X 3 X 2 X X 3 X 275a Rutland Road DS0000062380.V301748.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 24 Are there any outstanding requirements from the last inspection? Yes 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 YA6 Regulation 15 Requirement The service user plans must be consistently completed in one format. Service user plans must be reviewed at least every six months. Records of medication received into the home must be maintained. The administration of medicines must be accurately recorded. The home’s medication storage and system must be checked by a pharmacist. Regulation 26 reports must be completed on a monthly basis. The garden areas must be upgraded and made more accessible to service users. The home must have copies of staff application forms available for inspection at the home. Timescale for action 30/11/06 3. YA6 15 30/11/06 5. YA20 13 01/09/06 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. YA20 YA20 YA39 YA34 13 13 24 23 (2) (b) 19, Schedule 2 01/09/06 01/09/06 01/09/06 30/12/06 01/08/06 YA34 275a Rutland Road DS0000062380.V301748.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. Refer to Standard Good Practice Recommendations 275a Rutland Road DS0000062380.V301748.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 26 Commission for Social Care Inspection Sheffield Area Office Ground Floor, Unit 3 Waterside Court Bold Street Sheffield S9 2LR National Enquiry Line: 0845 015 0120 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 275a Rutland Road DS0000062380.V301748.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!