Inspection on 31/10/06 for 32 Beaumont Way

This inspection was carried out on 31st October 2006.

CSCI has not published a star rating for this report, though using similar criteria we estimate that the report is Excellent. 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 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

32 Beaumont Way 14/03/08

Similar services:

2 Perhaver Park

The Vicarage

St George`s

5 Seafield Road

Credence House

Radfords

Honeybourne House

Stallcombe House

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

CARE HOME ADULTS 18-65 Beamont Way (32) 32 Beamont Way Amesbury Wiltshire SP4 7UA Lead Inspector Roy Gregory Key Unannounced Inspection 31st October 2006 11:00 Beamont Way (32) DS0000067906.V314137.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 Beamont Way (32) DS0000067906.V314137.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. Beamont Way (32) DS0000067906.V314137.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 3 SERVICE INFORMATION Name of service Beamont Way (32) Address 32 Beamont Way Amesbury Wiltshire SP4 7UA 01725 511387 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) Sharon Anne Arnott Wendy Kirk Care Home 4 Category(ies) of Learning disability (4) registration, with number of places Beamont Way (32) DS0000067906.V314137.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 4 SERVICE INFORMATION Conditions of registration: Nil Date of last inspection N/A – this is first inspection Brief Description of the Service: 32 Beamont Way is a detached modern house on a development of similar properties. It provides accommodation for four adults in single rooms, all but one having the added benefit of en suite facilities. Shared spaces comprise of a kitchen, utility room, dining room, conservatory living room, bathroom and enclosed garden. The home is situated close to bus stops, as well as being within walking distance of Amesbury town centre. It is easily accessed from the A303 trunk road between London and the West Country. The basic fee level is £750 per week. This does not include items such as transport, toiletries, newspapers and social outings. Beamont Way (32) DS0000067906.V314137.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 5 SUMMARY This is an overview of what the inspector found during the inspection. The unannounced visit for this inspection took place between 11:00 a.m. and 8:20 p.m. on Tuesday 31st October 2006. The inspector, Roy Gregory, spoke at length in private with the three service users resident at the time. The inspector joined two of them with staff at the evening meal and joined social interactions in the sitting room and kitchen. The registered manager, Wendy Kirk, was available during the visit, as was the provider Sharon Arnott for the first hour. Additionally there was a conversation with a member of staff. The inspector looked at care plans and daily records to compare observations of care and residents’ perceptions with written records. A specific focus was the nature and quality of pre-admission assessment material used. Other records consulted included those relevant to recruitment and staffing, and health and safety. All communal areas of the building were visited and two bedrooms were seen by agreement of their occupants. Prior to the inspection visit, Wendy Kirk had sent core information as requested. The inspector has also made reference to details of the registration of the service, from June 2006. After the visit, the inspector had a telephone conversation with the relative of a service user, about their experience of the home through the assessment process and since the service user’s admission. The judgements contained in this report have been made from evidence gathered during the inspection, which included the visit to the service and taking into account the views and experiences of people using the service. What the service does well: At registration in June 2006, the premises had been completely redecorated and fitted out to meet the national minimum standards for care homes for younger adults. Thus the home provides an excellent standard of accommodation, which service users have made very personal. Two of the service users had moved from another, larger, home provided by Mr & Mrs Arnott. The third had moved from a service in another area. All were very positive about the emphasis at Beamont Way on making their own decisions and being active in day-to-day living activities in the house. One said, “I feel more in charge of my own life”. Another said, “I’m in control” and had experienced the approach of Beamont Way management and staff as positive from first contact. A relative of a service user described the home as “homely and friendly, like a normal family home, with everyday sounds like laughter in the background”, whilst also commenting several times on “the professionalism” shown by all staff. Care plans are of good quality, clearly reviewed regularly with service users’ involvement, to ensure staff concentrate their support on where it is needed. This is backed up by staff receiving regular formal supervision, and training Beamont Way (32) DS0000067906.V314137.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 6 that is relevant to service users’ needs. All service users were developing links with the local community, and were not dependant solely on resources directed at people with particular needs. 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. Beamont Way (32) DS0000067906.V314137.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 Beamont Way (32) DS0000067906.V314137.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): 1-4 Quality in this outcome area is excellent. This judgement has been made using available evidence, including a visit to this service. Service users are only admitted to the home on the basis of a professional assessment that explores their needs and demonstrates they can be met. Good information is provided to prospective residents and their supporters, as well as the opportunity to visit the home. EVIDENCE: At the time of the inspection visit, there were three people resident. Two of these were formerly resident at another service operated locally by the providers (Mr & Mrs Arnott). These service users confirmed separately how they were involved from an early stage in the possibility of their transfer to this new service, together with their family members and care managers. They felt in control of their respective decisions to make the move, which each saw as enabling them to live in a more independent way than in their former setting. The inspector is aware from inspection of the other service, that these residents received good information and were very much included in the transfer process. The third service user had moved from a service in another area. She described having received visits from Wendy Kirk and Sharon Arnott, followed by making a visit to Beamont Way and then an overnight stay. These preparatory stages were recorded, and also verified by a relative. On record Beamont Way (32) DS0000067906.V314137.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 9 were an assessment from the person’s previous placement, and a care manager community care assessment. The manager displayed a detailed knowledge of the assessment information gathered, showing it had been used effectively both to make the decision that the home could meet the person’s needs, and to commence care planning. The service user said she had felt included throughout the assessment and admission process, experiencing the home’s approach as positive from the start, and so far her confidence that the service was right for her had been justified. Her sentiments were echoed by a close relative. At the time of inspection visit there was a prospective occupant of the fourth place. Considerable assessment material had been obtained, and there was evidence that both service users and staff were being kept informed of progress, without breaching confidentiality. Subsequently the person has moved in, on a time scale set by the service rather than in a more hasty way preferred by the person’s previous placement. There is a simple but informative service users’ guide. Mrs Kirk agreed it would be appropriate to provide a copy to service users’ nearest relatives. This would help them advocate for their relatives in comparing the service provided with what is aimed for in the guide. A relative who had seen the guide described it as “very understandable”, comparing it with a “glossy brochure” from another service that they had found less useful. Beamont Way (32) DS0000067906.V314137.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): 6-9 Quality in this outcome area is good. This judgement has been made using available evidence, including a visit to this service. Service users are aware of the care planning process and its links with the inputs of other professionals. There are good systems in place for consultation with service users about every-day life in the home. On an individual level there is appropriate support to risk-taking in order to promote independence. EVIDENCE: Care plans were in place for all service users, with evidence of monthly review and of service users’ agreement to contents. Where a service user had a full review of placement with their care manager, it was evident they had helped prepare their review notes. One feature of the plans was a skills assessment, and an example was seen of recent update for one service user. Another standard component was a personal profile, which service users signed. People were well aware of their care plans and why they were there. A service user said they saw choice and decision-making as the main feature of living at Beamont Way. They appreciated the absence of pre-determined routines, and the acceptance of opting out of activities as well as in, backed by Beamont Way (32) DS0000067906.V314137.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 11 staff being made available to enable such decisions to be respected. Individual risk assessments were in place in respect of life choices such as being in the home alone for periods of time, and accessing the community in various ways. Whilst all support staff need to be familiar with the contents of all support plans, each service user is allocated two key workers who retain specific oversight and involvement. Additionally, there is a formal residents’ meeting every month to promote their “ownership” and collective decision-making in the home. Minutes, and discussions with residents, confirmed they valued this process and that they had actively contributed to establishing how the house runs. They made weekly decisions about division of household tasks. Beamont Way (32) DS0000067906.V314137.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): 11 - 17 Quality in this outcome area is excellent. This judgement has been made using available evidence, including a visit to this service. The nature of working relationships between service users and staff, mean that residents have access to planned and spontaneous activities that fit their individual wishes and needs. These provide for access to the wider community, and maintenance of significant relationships. Service users enjoy a good quality diet, and are involved in cooking and other daily living activities. EVIDENCE: All the service users liked living in a residential area with ready access to buses. One was regularly walking to a local shop and into Amesbury. One person had been helped to find a voluntary job, which they attended twice a week with staff support. Others made use of some day services and sheltered employment. Socially, there was use of local clubs, without dependence purely on provision for people with special needs. Key working days were used to pursue individual interests, including support to drawing personal monies. Service users had care plans for money management, which were very specific about the nature of support needed, including with budgeting. Staff were Beamont Way (32) DS0000067906.V314137.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 13 making persistent attempts to secure a horse riding opportunity to enable a service user to re-establish this interest. Another user confirmed he had sustained his active interests in auto sports and rock music. Within the house, service users were supported to prepare meals and to undertake their room cleaning and laundry. All told the inspector they liked this direct involvement in everyday life. One person had taken on mowing the lawn, as a trade-off for not ironing! All service users were involved in food shopping at different times. Wishes about meals were determined each morning. There was an emphasis on people getting snack lunches, when they wanted them. Wendy Kirk said she ensured fresh vegetables were included on the menu at least on alternate days. There was also oversight of diabetic issues for one service user, and of weight for all. Care plans contained nutritional guidance. Evening meals were mainly taken together, but it was said that sometimes people would make an individual meal. The inspector joined an evening meal, which was taken in the dining room. One service user opted out, having eaten a large meal elsewhere. The meal was prepared by a service user, with some staff support. With staff prompts, the two service users at the table agreed an exchange of planned cooking days, to fit better with their respective day activities. Both took part in clearing the table and washing up. There were care plans for supporting relationships with family and friends, by telephone, visits, exchanges of information and reminders about significant dates and events. A relative considered the home kept them well informed of significant matters, without overstepping their relative’s rights with regard to confidentiality and privacy. Beamont Way (32) DS0000067906.V314137.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 - 20 Quality in this outcome area is good. This judgement has been made using available evidence, including a visit to this service. Healthcare needs are recorded and their management includes use of external consultation and guidance in order to identify and meet needs. There are good arrangements for safe management of medications. EVIDENCE: Care plans gave good guidance on meeting needs in this outcome group. For a person with diabetes, there was a diabetes management plan that they had signed. This included a risk assessment about disposal of sharps. The person’s goals of stability of weight, blood sugar levels and so on had been subject of scrutiny in the supervision notes for one of the key workers working with this person. A training session about diabetes had been held for all staff. Staff had used various information to better understand another person’s specific condition, including a videotape provided by their family. “OK” health checks and weight monitoring were used for all residents. The inspector was aware that prior to opening the home, the provider and manager had strong links already with local health and social services, including learning disabilities nurse, general practitioner and community psychiatric nurse. The latter had reviewed a person’s mental health care plan, Beamont Way (32) DS0000067906.V314137.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 15 stating the move to Beamont Way had been a positive one. Identified further needs were delegated to be progressed. It was stated that the individual had a Health Action Plan. Each bedroom has a wall-mounted medications cabinet, in which just the individual’s medicines and administration chart are kept. This is a good way of minimising risk of errors and incorporating use of medicines into an individual’s preferred routines, in private. Presently staff were unlocking and administering medicines, but Wendy Kirk saw potential for increasing service users’ direct involvement in these tasks, under supervision. There had been a visit from the supplying pharmacist in September 2006, when key factors in storage, administration and return of medicines had been audited, with no shortfalls identified. Beamont Way (32) DS0000067906.V314137.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 & 23 Quality in this outcome area is good. This judgement has been made using available evidence, including a visit to this service. Service users are confident in the ability and readiness of management and staff to respond to any discontent or concern. There are sound arrangements to promote the security of service users. EVIDENCE: There were three compliments about the home on file. There was also a record of handling of a complaint, which had involved a visit made to the complainant, and follow-up correspondence. Service users foresaw no difficulties in raising any issues of concern informally in everyday contact, or by asking for private time with Wendy Kirk or Sharon Arnott. They also knew how to contact care managers. There was a copy of the local inter-agency vulnerable adults procedures in the office. This was introduced to staff as part of induction, along with abuse awareness training. There are recorded monthly checks with service users to ensure they have identity information to carry with them when away from the house; and that they know how to contact the home, or how to contact staff if alone in the home. Each service user chose how to make use of bedroom door keys, and two had front door keys. Procedures were in place for safe closedown of the house overnight and whenever it was to be left unoccupied. Beamont Way (32) DS0000067906.V314137.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 17 Observation of support given to a service user with their money management showed this promoted confidence and security. Each resident was satisfied with the arrangements they had individually come to for this aspect of support. A behaviour management agreement for one person was signed not only by them, but also by their doctor, and was designed to balance rights with responsibilities. Beamont Way (32) DS0000067906.V314137.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 18 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, 30 Quality in this outcome area is excellent. This judgement has been made using available evidence, including a visit to this service. Beamont Way provides a homely and individualised environment, maintained and kept clean to a high standard. Residents are satisfied with their private and communal accommodation, both of which encourage and facilitate choices. EVIDENCE: Having been registered as a new service in June 2006, the home presented as modern, homely and fresh throughout. Service users were very pleased with both their individual accommodation, and the shared rooms. Three of the four bedrooms have en suite showers and toilets, whilst the fourth had ready access to a toilet with wash hand basin. A bathroom with bath and shower over gave service users additional choices. Service users said the house had been comfortable during the summer heatwave, whilst on autumn evenings it was cosy. They had put various personal ornaments and so on in the sitting room. Each had been able to choose the colour scheme of their bedrooms. Staff members considered the environment to work well. All the requirements of the environmental health officer, set at the time of registration, had been fully complied with. Beamont Way (32) DS0000067906.V314137.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 19 Whilst service users have a responsibility for the basic cleanliness of their rooms, and to assist with cleaning communal areas, written procedures and check sheets showed that staff had responsibility for deep cleaning. This included, for example, the utility room, and weekly support to bedroom cleaning. Key workers were responsible for en suite facilities, and for threemonthly spring cleaning of bedrooms. Specific guidance for spring cleaning was in place, and a chart showed when in the year it should take place for each bedroom. The house was clean throughout. Beamont Way (32) DS0000067906.V314137.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 20 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 - 36 Quality in this outcome area is good. This judgement has been made using available evidence, including a visit to this service. Staffing is sufficient in numbers and quality to ensure service users are safely and consistently supported. Recruitment practice is safe. Staff are supported in their roles by regular supervision and by planned training, including to NVQ, that is relevant to the needs of service users. EVIDENCE: The support workers’ job description emphasises that key work responsibilities are a main part of the role. A policy on the meaning of key work develops this, stressing the importance of maintaining and developing service users’ skills and independence through support, rather than doing things for them. Wendy Kirk has identified induction and ongoing training as the key to operating this policy. A training plan was supplied to the inspector in advance of the inspection visit. One member of staff was nearing completion of NVQ level 3 in care, for which all will be expected to register. Key areas of training, such as abuse awareness and infection control, are programmed for re-visiting by the staff team at annual intervals, as well as being part of induction. Certificated training is arranged for all staff in food hygiene, first aid, health and safety and medication administration. Wendy Kirk and Sharon Arnott had put on a roleBeamont Way (32) DS0000067906.V314137.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 21 play training event the previous week to help staff identify and understand the care needs of one of the service users. There is a repeating rota that is designed to fit with known service user needs. Numbers of staff on the rota vary from one to three (including the manager). At times there is a commitment to provide one-to-one staffing for individuals. Lone working is a necessity for all members of staff, but this was not sufficiently highlighted in the person specification, nor had staff been required to sign up to the related risk assessment. Wendy Kirk agreed there should be a service policy on lone working, reflected in staff contracts. There is always an on-call manager available to the home. Interviews for staff had been held when service users were around. Where an interview appeared likely to lead to appointment, the person was invited to return for tea with the residents; one applicant had been rejected after such an event, as a service user said they did not feel comfortable with them. All staff recruited had been subject to required checks and statutory documentation was in place. Induction was in line with Skills for Care guidance. A handover sheet was in use between staff. There was evidence of two staff meeting together to discuss joint key working responsibilities. Staff meetings were recorded at roughly six-weekly intervals, with each including detailed updating information exchange about all service users, with direct reference to care plans. Wendy Kirk was pleased that so far, all staff had been able to attend these meetings. There was evidence of staff supervision being both regular and of good quality, with a clear emphasis on key work roles and identifying progress or obstacles in service users’ development. Beamont Way (32) DS0000067906.V314137.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 22 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, 38, 39 & 42 Quality in this outcome area is excellent. This judgement has been made using available evidence, including a visit to this service. There are good provisions in place for overseeing delivery of a quality service. Staff and service users understand the aims of the home. The views of users and their supporters are valued and used to inform further development. Health and safety of service users and staff are well provided for. EVIDENCE: Wendy Kirk was registered as manager at the same time as registration of the service, meeting all required criteria. She continues to have weekly management meetings with Sharon Arnott, and produces a monthly management report for staff. Most of her hours worked are additional to the support rota, in order to accomplish supervisory and administrative tasks. But she is part of the support rota on alternate weekends and at other times. All service users expressed confidence in how the home was run, identifying Wendy Kirk as central to this. They also appreciated Sharon Arnott’s background presence. Beamont Way (32) DS0000067906.V314137.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 23 Service users have been encouraged to make the home “theirs”, with staff providing a support role. As part of an annual quality audit, residents had recently completed questionnaires, which showed a very positive response. However, for anyone with little reading skill, there was no pictorial guidance. Two service users described assistance from staff to complete the exercise. It would be preferable to arrange for external support for completion of these questionnaires. Wendy Kirk agreed also, that pictorial aids to answering the questions should be considered. Residents’ supporters had recently been canvassed for views on the quality of care provided, by way of postal questionnaires. One had been received back, and was very positive. A monthly quality audit tool showed active monitoring of all aspects of managing the home, checking for example formal staff supervision, reviews of care plans and environmental issues. Any issues for attention are readily identified this way. The few accident records that had been necessary were well kept, monitored, and cross-referred to daily records. There were good systems in place for monitoring and attending to health and safety matters. There was a record of monthly fire training for residents and staff. Glen Arnott, provider, carries out routine fire precautions checks and maintains excellent records. He also carries out or arranges maintenance tasks as they are identified. Beamont Way (32) DS0000067906.V314137.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 24 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 4 3 3 4 4 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 4 25 4 26 3 27 4 28 3 29 X 30 4 STAFFING Standard No Score 31 X 32 3 33 3 34 3 35 3 36 3 CONDUCT AND MANAGEMENT OF THE HOME Standard No 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 Score 3 3 3 3 X LIFESTYLES Standard No Score 11 3 12 4 13 4 14 3 15 3 16 3 17 4 PERSONAL AND HEALTHCARE SUPPORT Standard No 18 19 20 21 Score 3 4 4 N/A 4 4 3 X X 4 X Beamont Way (32) DS0000067906.V314137.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 25 Are there any outstanding requirements from the last inspection? N/A 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. Standard Regulation Requirement Timescale for action 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. 3. Refer to Standard YA1 YA36 YA39 Good Practice Recommendations Provide a copy of the service user guide to close relatives and other potential advocates. Develop a policy for lone working and ensure staff work within its terms. Consider ways of making the service user questionnaire more accessible to people with limited reading skills; and arrange for assistance to complete it, if wanted by a service user, from a person external to the service. Beamont Way (32) DS0000067906.V314137.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 26 Commission for Social Care Inspection Chippenham Area Office Avonbridge House Bath Road Chippenham SN15 2BB 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 Beamont Way (32) DS0000067906.V314137.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!