Inspection on 09/05/06 for 36 Hurstville Drive

This inspection was carried out on 9th May 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 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

36 Hurstville Drive 26/09/07

Similar services:

Hillview Farm

Dalewood Respite Care

Orchard,The

REACH Upton Court Road

Fairways

Treloar College

Kestrel House, St Anne`s Opportunity Centre,

Pinta

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

CARE HOME ADULTS 18-65 36 Hurstville Drive Waterlooville Hampshire PO7 7ND Lead Inspector Nick Morrison Unannounced Inspection 9th May 2006 12:00 36 Hurstville Drive DS0000065748.V287764.R01.S.doc Version 5.1 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 36 Hurstville Drive DS0000065748.V287764.R01.S.doc Version 5.1 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. 36 Hurstville Drive DS0000065748.V287764.R01.S.doc Version 5.1 Page 3 SERVICE INFORMATION Name of service 36 Hurstville Drive Address Waterlooville Hampshire PO7 7ND 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) 01225 44596 The Robinia Care Group Ltd Mrs Sonya Michelle Rimmer Care Home 4 Category(ies) of Learning disability (4) registration, with number of places 36 Hurstville Drive DS0000065748.V287764.R01.S.doc Version 5.1 Page 4 SERVICE INFORMATION Conditions of registration: Date of last inspection Na – this was the first inspection Brief Description of the Service: 36 Hurstville Road is a new service that has been operational since January 2006. It is registered for four people but only three people have moved into the home so far. The home is in a small close in a residential area of Waterlooville and is close to local amenities. Information on fee levels was not available as the organisation is currently liaising with Care Managers and funding authorities over exact fees. 36 Hurstville Drive DS0000065748.V287764.R01.S.doc Version 5.1 Page 5 SUMMARY This is an overview of what the inspector found during the inspection. During the inspection the Inspector toured the premises, met with three service users, four staff, the Manager and two relatives. It was difficult to talk to service users due to their communication, but the Inspector did observe staff interaction with service users. The inspection also involved looking at care plans for all three service users, staff files and other relevant documentation referred to in the text. The inspection lasted for five and a half hours. What the service does well: 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. 36 Hurstville Drive DS0000065748.V287764.R01.S.doc Version 5.1 Page 6 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 36 Hurstville Drive DS0000065748.V287764.R01.S.doc Version 5.1 Page 7 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): 2 Quality in this outcome area is good. This judgement has been made using the available evidence including a visit to the service. Service users benefit from having their needs assessed prior to moving into the home EVIDENCE: All the service users had comprehensive assessments on file that had been completed prior to admission to the home. There were care management assessments that had been completed by the Care Managers and these were supplemented by the home’s own assessments. The assessments were structured and covered the full range of need areas. The families of service users had been involved in the assessment process and in the whole process of moving into the home. This included planned visits prior to admission. 36 Hurstville Drive DS0000065748.V287764.R01.S.doc Version 5.1 Page 8 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 and 9 Quality in this outcome area is good. This judgement has been made using the available evidence including a visit to the service. Service users benefit from having clear individual plans in place and from support to take decisions and risks appropriate to their development. EVIDENCE: All service users had individual care plans on file that had been developed in response to the needs identified through the assessment process. Care plans were very comprehensive and detailed and there was a separate plan for each need area. Staff recorded against each individual care plan for each individual service user after every shift. It was clear from this and from observation of staff interaction with service users that the care plans were working documents used as the focus for the way staff supported service users. Staff spoken with were clear about care plans and each member of staff had signed each care plan to demonstrate that they had read and understood it. Care plans described how each service user made and communicated decisions about their lives and the Inspector observed staff supporting service users to make decisions as it was described on the care plan. 36 Hurstville Drive DS0000065748.V287764.R01.S.doc Version 5.1 Page 9 For each care plan there had been a process of identifying whether or not there were any risks for the service user or others. Where a risk had been identified it was recorded along with identified measures to be put in place to reduce the risk. These were recorded against on a daily basis, like the care plans, and were regularly reviewed by staff in light of new and ongoing information about the risk. 36 Hurstville Drive DS0000065748.V287764.R01.S.doc Version 5.1 Page 10 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 the available evidence including a visit to the service. Service users benefit from being part of the community and involved in varied activities. They also benefit from regular contact with their families and a healthy diet. EVIDENCE: Each service user had a timetable of activities for the week which was documented in their care plan. The activities related to the identified needs of each service user. Participation was recorded. For one service user this included day services and another was still at school. For the third person the activities were planned and delivered by staff on duty at the home. On the day of inspection staff were supporting service users to be involved in household activities as well as recreational activities, such as board games. On the day of inspection one service user had been shopping at the local supermarket with a member of staff to buy the week’s groceries. They had also been to a café. Service users were encouraged and supported to use local community facilities and staff spoken with were clear that this was a key part of their role. 36 Hurstville Drive DS0000065748.V287764.R01.S.doc Version 5.1 Page 11 Discussion with a relative confirmed that the amount and kind of activities available to service users were varied, suited their needs and were based on supporting service users to have ordinary life experiences. Contact with families was encouraged and supported by the home. On the day of inspection one of the service user’s mother and brother were at the home to spend time with her. There appeared very relaxed and welcome in the home and reported that they were allowed and encouraged to come whenever they wanted to. The mother said that, being able to drop in whenever she felt like it made her feel reassured about the staff and the Provider. Some service users went to visit their relatives and even stayed overnight with them at times. As it is a new home, a lot of work had been put into supporting service users to settle in. This had included encouraging families to be involved in all aspects of the home. The relatives spoken with were very happy with the way they had been included in their relative moving into the home. Each of the people living in the home had specific dietary requirements. These had been assessed and recorded prior to moving in and meals were planned around their specific needs. On the day of inspection staff were cooking three different meals for the three people living in the home. Service users were encouraged, where possible, to make choices about what meals they were going to have and there were opportunities for them to eat out as well. Menus showed that they received a varied and balanced diet and relatives confirmed this. The staff at the home had been working with dieticians to ensure service users were receiving appropriate food and on the day of inspection the manager was discussing food and possible allergies with the parent of a service user. 36 Hurstville Drive DS0000065748.V287764.R01.S.doc Version 5.1 Page 12 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 good. This judgement has been made using the available evidence including a visit to the service. Service users are protected by the home’s medication policy and practices and benefit from having their health and support needs met appropriately. EVIDENCE: Care plans were clear and specific about how each person living in the home preferred to be supported. Relatives had been involved in writing the care plans and their experience of supporting the person was relied upon. Staff observed on the day of inspection displayed a caring and unobtrusive approach to supporting people. Relatives spoken with confirmed that their relative was supported very well. The health needs of service users were monitored and recorded daily and records showed that they were supported to attend medical appointments and regular medical check-ups. The monitoring of both physical and mental health needs was a central part of the care planning system used in the home. Staff in the home administered medication, as no service users were able to retain and administer their own medication. Records demonstrated that staff involved in administering medication had received relevant training. Records were kept of all medication administered and these matched with the amount of medication in the home. Medication was stored securely in a locked 36 Hurstville Drive DS0000065748.V287764.R01.S.doc Version 5.1 Page 13 medicine cupboard. The home had a clear and appropriate medication policy in place which staff were aware of. 36 Hurstville Drive DS0000065748.V287764.R01.S.doc Version 5.1 Page 14 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 the available evidence including a visit to the service. Service users benefit from a clear complaints policy and were protected by the home’s abuse policies and practices. EVIDENCE: The Service User Guide contained clear information about how to complain and a full Complaints Policy supported this. The home was making efforts to make the information available in a format accessible to people who live in the home. There had been no complaints from service users or their families. There had been some complaints from neighbours and these had been dealt with in a timely manner by the home and clear records kept. Relatives said they were aware of how to make complaints, but had had no reason to. There were policies and procedures in place aimed at safeguarding service users from any kind of abuse. Staff had signed to say they had read understood these. All staff had received training in responding to instances of suspected abuse and the manager was clear about local reporting procedures. The behaviour of service users was understood as communication of unmet needs and was responded to sympathetically. Records demonstrated that behaviour was used to understand service users more and to change their care plans as necessary. Service users’ finances were managed by the home and policies and procedures were in place to support this happening safely. Records were kept of all transactions and these were detailed and transparent. 36 Hurstville Drive DS0000065748.V287764.R01.S.doc Version 5.1 Page 15 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 and 30 Quality in this outcome area is good. This judgement has been made using the available evidence including a visit to the service. Service users benefit from living in a comfortable, safe and clean home. EVIDENCE: The home had been recently refurbished and while it kept the appearance of an ordinary house in keeping with the local area, it was physically adapted to meet the needs of people living there. Bedrooms offered a lot of individual space for service users and the communal areas consisted of a large kitchen/dining room and two lounges, one upstairs and one downstairs. The rear garden was accessible and was made comfortable with seating for outdoors eating. Inside the home was spacious, airy, well decorated and comfortable. Furnishings were all new and of good quality. The home was clean and hygienic throughout, while still managing to appear comfortable and homely. Procedures were in place to prevent the spread of infections and staff were aware of these. The laundry area was situated away from food storage and preparation areas and was clean and well managed. 36 Hurstville Drive DS0000065748.V287764.R01.S.doc Version 5.1 Page 16 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 the available evidence including a visit to the service. Service users benefit from being supported by competent, trained staff and are protected by the home’s recruitment policies and practices. EVIDENCE: Staff employed in the home had a complete induction prior to the home opening. This covered all aspects of supporting people who have learning difficulties in a small home including communication, working with difficult behaviours and Health and Safety issues. The organisation has an ongoing training plan that reflects the training needs as identified with individual staff. Examination of staff files in the home demonstrated that all necessary preemployment checks were undertaken prior to staff beginning work in the home. Detailed records were kept of all staff interviews. Service users were unable to participate in the recruitment and selection process because of their communication, but it was clear from the interview records that questions were based on the identified needs of service users. 36 Hurstville Drive DS0000065748.V287764.R01.S.doc Version 5.1 Page 17 36 Hurstville Drive DS0000065748.V287764.R01.S.doc Version 5.1 Page 18 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 the available evidence including a visit to the service. Service users benefit from living in a well run home where their views underpin service development and they are protected by the home’s Health and Safety policies and practices. EVIDENCE: The manager has recently become registered in respect of this home. As such she has demonstrated that she has the competence, qualifications and experience to be a Registered Manager. She also undertakes periodic raining events to update her knowledge. The organisation has a Quality Assurance process to monitor and improve the service. The process is comprehensive and includes the comments and experiences of service users as a central and key part. As the service is new, the process has not yet been put into practice fully, but the home has begun recording the experiences and views of service users and their families. Health and Safety documentation was comprehensive and complete. Staff had received training and Health and Safety responsibilities within the home were 36 Hurstville Drive DS0000065748.V287764.R01.S.doc Version 5.1 Page 19 documented. Workplace risk assessments were in place where necessary and these were regularly monitored and reviewed. During the inspection of the home there were no Health and Safety concerns identified by the Inspector, service users, staff or relatives. 36 Hurstville Drive DS0000065748.V287764.R01.S.doc Version 5.1 Page 20 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 X 2 3 3 X 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 X 29 X 30 3 STAFFING Standard No Score 31 X 32 3 33 X 34 3 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 3 PERSONAL AND HEALTHCARE SUPPORT Standard No 18 19 20 21 Score 3 3 3 X 3 X 2 X X 3 X 36 Hurstville Drive DS0000065748.V287764.R01.S.doc Version 5.1 Page 21 na 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. 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. Refer to Standard Good Practice Recommendations 36 Hurstville Drive DS0000065748.V287764.R01.S.doc Version 5.1 Page 22 Commission for Social Care Inspection Hampshire Office 4th Floor Overline House Blechynden Terrace Southampton SO15 1GW 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 36 Hurstville Drive DS0000065748.V287764.R01.S.doc Version 5.1 Page 23 - 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!