Inspection on 16/04/07 for 384 Lower Broughton Rd

This inspection was carried out on 16th April 2007.

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

384 Lower Broughton Rd 09/01/06

384 Lower Broughton Rd 04/10/05

384 Lower Broughton Rd 14/03/05

384 Lower Broughton Rd 19/11/04

Similar services:

Clover House

Parkside

Park Lodge

Mere Hall View

St Bonaventures

Hudson Road

Whitewalls

Home Farm

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

CARE HOME ADULTS 18-65 384 Lower Broughton Rd Salford Gtr Manchester M7 2HH Lead Inspector Helen Dempster Unannounced Inspection 16th April 2007 08:00 384 Lower Broughton Rd DS0000062670.V320412.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 384 Lower Broughton Rd DS0000062670.V320412.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. 384 Lower Broughton Rd DS0000062670.V320412.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 3 SERVICE INFORMATION Name of service 384 Lower Broughton Rd Address Salford Gtr Manchester M7 2HH Telephone number Fax number Email address Provider Web address Name of registered provider(s)/company (if applicable) Name of registered manager (if applicable) Type of registration No. of places registered (if applicable) 0161 737 7339 Pendleton Care Ltd Vacant post Care Home 3 Category(ies) of Learning disability (3) registration, with number of places 384 Lower Broughton Rd DS0000062670.V320412.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 4 SERVICE INFORMATION Conditions of registration: 1. All service users are aged between 18 - 65 on admission and have a learning disability. 9th January 2006 Date of last inspection Brief Description of the Service: 384 Lower Broughton Road is a care home, which is registered to provide care and support to four service users requiring care by reason of autism and related learning disability. Accommodation is offered in single bedrooms. The home is registered in the name of Pendleton Care Ltd. The responsible individual is Mr Hugh Davis. Mr John Russell is the acting manager he has applied to be registered manager of the home. The property is a large semi-detached building which blends positively into the residential area of Lower Broughton. The adjoining house is also owned by Pendleton Care Ltd and is a separately registered care home, although the two homes are managed by the same person and do share some resources and activities. The home is within easy reach of shopping areas, such as Salford Precinct, and other community facilities, public houses and local shops. The range of fees is between £50,000 and £85,000 per year. 384 Lower Broughton Rd DS0000062670.V320412.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 5 SUMMARY This is an overview of what the inspector found during the inspection. The inspection was conducted by gathering lots of information this included the manager filling in a questionnaire about the home, which gave information about the residents, the staff and the building. The inspection also included carrying out an unannounced site visit to the home on 16 April 2007 from 8am to 6pm. During this visit, lots of information about the way that the home was run was gathered and time was taken in communicating with some of the residents, the manager, the staff team, a resident’s relative and the registered person for the company that owned the home, about the day-to-day care and what living at the home was like for the residents. Other information given to the Commission by the home was also used to produce this report. The main focus of the inspection was to understand how the home was meeting the needs of the residents and how well the staff were themselves supported to make sure that they had the skills and training to meet the needs of the residents. What the service does well: Overall, the home provides a good service and there are some aspects of the service that are excellent. The good things about the service include the following: When the admission of a person into the home was being considered, the person was given information about the home in a form they could understand and were involved in the home’s assessment so that staff could meet their needs in the way they preferred. Each resident had their own copy of the Service User Guide, which had been produced with pictures to make them easy to understand. Care plans, risk assessments and behaviour management plans were detailed and gave staff clear instructions about how to meet each resident’s needs in the way that they would prefer. Regular reviews of each resident’s social and health needs take place. Residents’ relatives and the care managers are told about what was agreed at the review. Staff were skilled in helping residents to communicate and took care to ensure that they were helped to be as independent as possible. 384 Lower Broughton Rd DS0000062670.V320412.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 6 All people using the service have access to sports facilities and get involved in the local community. A holiday is also provided each year. Residents’ likes and dislikes were recorded and the food at the home is good. A resident’s relative talked about being happy with the way that staff respected this involvement. This person said staff, “ask my advice all the time” and that they “make me feel like the most important person in (the resident’s) life”. A recently recruited member of staff said that residents are “treated with respect, dignity and given choices” and are “not patronised”. The home had a clear complaints procedure that was accessible to the residents. Staff and a resident’s relative said that they liked the manager. One member of staff said that he was “good” and has an “open door policy”. Another member of staff said that the manager has “good ideas”, “consults staff”, “implements” good ideas and encourages staff to progress. This staff member added that the manager was “good with residents”, and was “very calm” and “relaxed”. A resident’s relative said that the manager was “brilliant”. This person said that they “Can ring him anytime about anything” and that communication was “very good”. Staff had access to training and development opportunities. What has improved since the last inspection? What they could do better: Residents had a contract, but were unable to sign the contract personally. These were not signed by anyone on their behalf. Information was not easy to find in residents files so staff may have difficulty in supporting them in the planned way. Staff should be aware of how medicines are to be given and what side effects to look out for. 384 Lower Broughton Rd DS0000062670.V320412.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 7 The fire risk assessment needed to be reviewed and risk assessments needed to be completed about the risk to residents from uncovered radiators. Some health and safety issues were noted that should be dealt with quickly. There was an instance in recording where resident’s confidentiality was not maintained. Please contact the provider for advice of actions taken in response to this inspection. The report of this inspection is available from enquiries@csci.gsi.gov.uk or by contacting your local CSCI office. The summary of this inspection report can be made available in other formats on request. 384 Lower Broughton Rd DS0000062670.V320412.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 8 DETAILS OF INSPECTOR FINDINGS CONTENTS Choice of Home (Standards 1–5) Individual Needs and Choices (Standards 6-10) Lifestyle (Standards 11-17) Personal and Healthcare Support (Standards 18-21) Concerns, Complaints and Protection (Standards 22-23) Environment (Standards 24-30) Staffing (Standards 31-36) Conduct and Management of the Home (Standards 37 – 43) Scoring of Outcomes Statutory Requirements Identified During the Inspection 384 Lower Broughton Rd DS0000062670.V320412.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 9 Choice of Home The intended outcomes for Standards 1 – 5 are: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Prospective service users have the information they need to make an informed choice about where to live. Prospective users’ individual aspirations and needs are assessed. Prospective service users know that the home that they will choose will meet their needs and aspirations. Prospective service users have an opportunity to visit and to “test drive” the home. Each service user has an individual written contract or statement of terms and conditions with the home. The Commission consider Standard 2 the key standard to be inspected. JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for the following standard(s): 1, 2 and 5. Quality in this outcome area is excellent. This judgement has been made using available evidence including a visit to this service. Information in an appropriate form was available to prospective residents who were included in the pre admission assessment process. EVIDENCE: The case files for all four residents were seen. Each resident had their own copy of the Service User Guide, which had been produced in a pictorial form to make them user friendly. Residents had a contract, but were unable to sign the contract personally and there was no evidence that this had been approved by someone acting on the resident’s behalf. All four residents’ files contained the care managers’ assessment, a referral form and a copy of the home’s own assessment. The home’s own assessment was clear and very detailed and provided staff with clear instructions as to how to meet each resident’s needs in the way that they would prefer. 384 Lower Broughton Rd DS0000062670.V320412.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 10 The manager said that before admission, prospective residents are encouraged to stay for tea or for an overnight stay. He said that the home has a focus on making sure that new residents “fit in” with existing residents. 384 Lower Broughton Rd DS0000062670.V320412.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 11 Individual Needs and Choices The intended outcomes for Standards 6 – 10 are: 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. Service users know their assessed and changing needs and personal goals are reflected in their individual Plan. Service users make decisions about their lives with assistance as needed. Service users are consulted on, and participate in, all aspects of life in the home. Service users are supported to take risks as part of an independent lifestyle. Service users know that information about them is handled appropriately, and that their confidences are kept. The Commission considers Standards 6, 7 and 9 the key standards to be inspected. JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for the following standard(s): 6, 7 and 9. Quality in this outcome area is excellent. This judgement has been made using available evidence including a visit to this service. Care plans are thorough, include the resident, and evidence good practice in review and communication with other professionals and families. EVIDENCE: Each resident had seven files. These contained the Service Users Guide, the care plan, key worker information and reviews of the needs of each resident, a health action plan, a person centred plan and a reference file. While the contents of the files were comprehensive, it was difficult to find information with ease. A new member of staff said that the filing system was not “user friendly”. The manager agreed that some information could be archived and the files could be re arranged. 384 Lower Broughton Rd DS0000062670.V320412.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 12 Care plans and risk assessments were detailed and provided staff with clear guidance on how to meet each resident’s needs. There were some examples of good background information about residents and guidance on diversity issues. The home reviewed each resident’s needs on a monthly basis and completed a more formal review every three months, to which each resident’s relatives were invited. The three monthly reviews looked at activities, education, health, diet, behaviour, interaction/communication and any outstanding issues. The outcome of these reviews was sent, in writing, to each resident’s next of kin and care manager. Some of the residents are not able to communicate verbally and various forms of communication, including the use of picture board, signing and observing body language were used. The manager said that all staff attended a communication course and that the home is about to access the “Total Communication “ course provided by Salford Local Authority. As a result of some residents not being able to communicate verbally, their relatives were consulted about their care. One resident’s relative confirmed seeing the care plan for their relative and said that they wanted to see everything at first, but felt “more comfortable “now. The home had a focus on promoting independence, this included being very positive about residents skills in care plans. One resident’s care plan stated that this person was “very able” and “enjoys working towards greater independence”. This resident was seen to be making a packed lunch, and staff intervention was appropriate and balanced. Independence was promoted by the use of clear risk assessments concerning such issues as access to the community. The home also had clear guidance on managing behaviour. Clear breakaway techniques were also in place for those occasions when a resident’s behaviour put them and others at risk. Care plans and management plans stressed the need for a “consistent approach” to behaviour. The manager said that the residents did not have the skills to totally manage their own finances with the exception of one resident, who was able to manage a savings bank account. The personal allowance for all four residents was collected in cash each week and they were supported to manage it on a daily basis. Resident’s files had clear records of their finances, including detailed information of the breakdown of benefits and budgets. 384 Lower Broughton Rd DS0000062670.V320412.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 13 Lifestyle The intended outcomes for Standards 11 - 17 are: 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. Service users have opportunities for personal development. Service users are able to take part in age, peer and culturally appropriate activities. Service users are part of the local community. Service users engage in appropriate leisure activities. Service users have appropriate personal, family and sexual relationships. Service users’ rights are respected and responsibilities recognised in their daily lives. Service users are offered a healthy diet and enjoy their meals and mealtimes. The Commission considers Standards 12, 13, 15, 16 and 17 the key standards to be inspected. JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for the following standard(s): 12, 13, 15, 16 and 17. Quality in this outcome area is excellent. This judgement has been made using available evidence including a visit to this service. Residents had opportunities for personal development, and were supported to maintain contact with their family and friends. EVIDENCE: Since the previous inspection, the home had introduced an individual learning and development plan for each resident. The home was using “session plans” which recorded a resident’s progress in completing tasks independently. This included daily activities concerning personal care and daily washing skills. The manager said that the residents have an annual holiday, for the last two years this had been as a group but plans are that individual holidays will be taken from now on. Residents have access to sports and community focused 384 Lower Broughton Rd DS0000062670.V320412.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 14 The menu at the home was seen to be varied and one resident talked about liking the food. Residents’ preferences and social likes and dislikes were recorded. Residents’ files also noted the importance of family contact and residents did have home visits. One resident’s relative confirmed that staff made visitors to the home welcome. One resident’s relative was interviewed, and this person said that communication at the home was very good and talked about being happy with the way that staff respected resident’s relative’s involvement. This person said that the staff, “ask my advice all the time” and that they “make me feel like the most important person in (the resident’s) life”. A recently recruited member of staff said that residents are “treated with respect, dignity and given choices” and are “not patronised”. 384 Lower Broughton Rd DS0000062670.V320412.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 15 Personal and Healthcare Support The intended outcomes for Standards 18 - 21 are: 18. 19. 20. 21. Service users receive personal support in the way they prefer and require. Service users’ physical and emotional health needs are met. Service users retain, administer and control their own medication where appropriate, and are protected by the home’s policies and procedures for dealing with medicines. The ageing, illness and death of a service user are handled with respect and as the individual would wish. The Commission considers Standards 18, 19, and 20 the key standards to be inspected. JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for the following standard(s): 18, 19 and 20. Quality in this outcome area is good. This judgement has been made using available evidence including a visit to this service. Residents’ health and wellbeing is promoted through the use of clear and detailed health plans, and safe practice in medication management . EVIDENCE: Each resident had a detailed health action plan. These noted individual resident’s needs and choices. The home reviewed health needs by completing a health check for each resident every three months. This included reviewing each resident’s health needs concerning their diet, body weight and medication. Examples of action taken due to changes noticed at these reviews were seen. There was also clear evidence of records of the occurrence of seizures for some residents, of three monthly psychiatrist reviews and of the involvement of health care professionals, including a clinical nurse specialist for continence. 384 Lower Broughton Rd DS0000062670.V320412.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 16 There was good practice seen in enabling residents to monitor their health independently with appropriate support from staff. Medication at the home is stored in a wall mounted, locked cabinet. Overall, medication practice was good. Some good practice seen included recording the receipt and balance of each medication on the medication administration records (MAR), regular reviews of residents’ prescribed medication and weekly audits of medication. Some of the residents’ files had information about what their medication was prescribed for and this should be expanded on for the benefit of all residents. 384 Lower Broughton Rd DS0000062670.V320412.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 17 Concerns, Complaints and Protection The intended outcomes for Standards 22 – 23 are: 22. 23. Service users feel their views are listened to and acted on. Service users are protected from abuse, neglect and self-harm. The Commission considers Standards 22, and 23 the key standards to be inspected. JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for the following standard(s): 22 and 23. Quality in this outcome area is good. This judgement has been made using available evidence including a visit to this service. Residents and their relatives/advocates benefit from access to a clear complaints procedure, and staff are aware of the home’s safeguarding procedures. EVIDENCE: The home had a clear complaints procedure, which included a version of the procedure in a pictorial form, so that residents could be encouraged to let staff know if anything was worrying them. No complaints had been received by the home, or by the Commission for Social Care Inspection, in the last 12 months. Salford Local Authority’s Protection of Vulnerable Adults Procedure was readily available at the home and the manager confirmed that staff had these guidelines and that staff training included training in the use of the local guidance. Some good practice in protecting residents was seen. This included having an adult protection statement and strategy, which noted one resident’s vulnerability in the community. This strategy stressed the need for staff support and had been reviewed regularly. 384 Lower Broughton Rd DS0000062670.V320412.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. 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 available evidence including a visit to this service. Residents benefited from a clean and homely environment which is for the most part safely maintained. EVIDENCE: All of the residents have single bedrooms, which were personalised. There is a bathroom and separate shower room, a comfortable and homely lounge and a kitchen. Overall, the home was clean and tidy and had been decorated to an acceptable standard. Since the previous inspection, the bathroom floor had been replaced. One resident’s bedroom was about to be redecorated and this resident’s key worker had obtained colour charts to support this resident to choose the décor. 384 Lower Broughton Rd DS0000062670.V320412.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 19 Trip hazards were noted on the stairs and one area of the floor on the entrance to the dining/kitchen. The manager indicated that these would be dealt with as soon as possible 384 Lower Broughton Rd DS0000062670.V320412.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. JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for the following standard(s): 32 and 35. Quality in this outcome area is good. This judgement has been made using available evidence including a visit to this service. Residents receive individual care from well trained and developed staff. EVIDENCE: The home’s staffing structure included the manager, an assistant manager, three senior support workers and nine support workers. The staff worked in this home, and in the organisation’s adjoining sister home. However, staff were deployed to a particular home on each shift. Staff rotas demonstrated that the home had sufficient staff on duty to meet the needs of the residents. This included ensuring that there was always staff on duty that could communicate with, and understand the residents, as some of them were unable to communicate verbally. Recruitment practice at the home was not fully assessed, as the organisation holds staff files at their head office. However, the most recently recruited member of staff was interviewed and described the recruitment process, which included completing an application, providing two references, having a Criminal 384 Lower Broughton Rd DS0000062670.V320412.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 21 Records Bureau (CRB) check and being interviewed. The manager said that the organisation’s head office deal with the recruitment process, including obtaining references and checking for gaps in employment histories. However, the manager added that he interviews applicants wherever possible and is asked to question gaps in the employment history at interviews. One member of staff described the induction process, which took three days, and included getting used to policies and procedures and seeing care plans. This person said that there is good rapport between staff and residents. There was evidence to demonstrate that staff had regular supervision on a broadly monthly basis. Examples of Personal Development Plans for staff were seen. The manager said that a training schedule is provided by the head office, and managers book staff on courses after checking the matrix to prioritise their needs. 384 Lower Broughton Rd DS0000062670.V320412.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. JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for the following standard(s): 37, 39, 41 and 42. Quality in this outcome area is good. This judgement has been made using available evidence including a visit to this service. Overall, the management and administration of the home promotes the health, safety and welfare of residents. EVIDENCE: At the time of this visit, the registered manager application for the acting manager was being processed. The acting manager is the registered manager of the organisation’s adjoining sister home. Staff were very positive about the manager. One member of staff said that he was “good” and has an “open door policy”. Another member of staff said that the manager has “good ideas”, “consults staff”, “implements” good ideas and 384 Lower Broughton Rd DS0000062670.V320412.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 23 encourages staff to progress. This staff member added that the manager was “good with residents”, and was “very calm” and “relaxed”. A resident’s relative said that the manager was “brilliant”. This person added that they “Can ring him anytime about anything” and that communication was “very good”. The manager said that the home’s policy is to record all correspondence sent on behalf of residents and to write to their relative to inform them about how to access inspection reports. Overall, records were well maintained. However, the home has a “Communications book” which is a communal record and contains detailed entries about individual residents, alongside detailed information about other residents. The manager said that it would be addressed immediately and reviewed the use of this book at the time of the visit. Development and supervision of staff was well established and sustained by the home. Many of the residents would not be able to give their views verbally, (see Individual Needs and Choices for details), and could not complete surveys. Therefore, reviews of residents’ needs were regularly conducted by the home to ensure that it meets planned objectives for each resident. A service questionnaire is also sent to residents’ relatives and the care manager with the reviews outcomes. Overall, health and safety procedures were established and monitored regularly. However, the fire risk assessment was basic but the provider said this would be dealt with immediately All radiators in the home were fitted with thermostats but there were no risk assessments of the danger to residents from prolonged contact with a hot surface. The manager stated he would carry out such assessments immediately. 384 Lower Broughton Rd DS0000062670.V320412.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 X 4 x 5 3 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 2 25 X 26 X 27 X 28 X 29 X 30 3 STAFFING Standard No Score 31 x 32 3 33 X 34 X 35 3 36 X CONDUCT AND MANAGEMENT OF THE HOME Standard No 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 Score 4 4 x 3 x LIFESTYLES Standard No Score 11 X 12 4 13 3 14 x 15 3 16 3 17 3 PERSONAL AND HEALTHCARE SUPPORT Standard No 18 19 20 21 Score 4 3 3 x 3 x 3 x 3 3 x 384 Lower Broughton Rd DS0000062670.V320412.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 25 No. Are there any outstanding requirements from the last inspection? STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS This section sets out the actions, which must be taken so that the registered person/s meets the Care Standards Act 2000, Care Homes Regulations 2001 and the National Minimum Standards. The Registered Provider(s) must comply with the given timescales. No. 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. Refer to Standard YA5 Good Practice Recommendations It is recommended that when residents are unable to sign their contact personally, the contracts be seen by their relative/advocate, who could check the details and sign on their behalf. It is recommended that the filing system for information about residents be reviewed, so that information can be quickly accessed with ease. 2. YA6 384 Lower Broughton Rd DS0000062670.V320412.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 26 Commission for Social Care Inspection Manchester Local Office 11th Floor West Point 501 Chester Road Old Trafford M16 9HU National Enquiry Line: Telephone: 0845 015 0120 or 0191 233 3323 Textphone: 0845 015 2255 or 0191 233 3588 Email: enquiries@csci.gsi.gov.uk Web: www.csci.org.uk © This report is copyright Commission for Social Care Inspection (CSCI) and may only be used in its entirety. Extracts may not be used or reproduced without the express permission of CSCI 384 Lower Broughton Rd DS0000062670.V320412.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!