Inspection on 16/04/07 for 386 Lower Broughton Road

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 found no outstanding requirements from the previous inspection report, but made 2 statutory requirements (actions the home must comply with) as a result of this inspection.

Other inspections for this house

386 Lower Broughton Road 09/01/06

386 Lower Broughton Road 05/10/05

386 Lower Broughton Road 14/03/05

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 18-65 386 Lower Broughton Road Salford Gtr Manchester M7 2HH Lead Inspector Helen Dempster Unannounced Inspection 16th April 2007 08:00 386 Lower Broughton Road DS0000062672.V320414.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 386 Lower Broughton Road DS0000062672.V320414.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. 386 Lower Broughton Road DS0000062672.V320414.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 3 SERVICE INFORMATION Name of service 386 Lower Broughton Road 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 Mr John Thomas Russell Care Home 3 Category(ies) of Learning disability (3) registration, with number of places 386 Lower Broughton Road DS0000062672.V320414.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 4 SERVICE INFORMATION Conditions of registration: 1. 2. All service users are aged between 18 - 65 on admission and have a learning disability. The maximum number of service users accommodated shall be 3. Date of last inspection 9th January 2006 Brief Description of the Service: 386 Lower Broughton Road is a residential care home offering support to three adults. Two residents were accommodated at the time of the visit. The home is registered to provide care to adults with a learning disability and related autism and provides personal care and support to residents in all aspects of day-to-day life. The home is registered in the name of Pendleton Care Ltd. The Responsible Individual is Mr Hugh Davis. The home is managed by Mr John Russell. 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. 386 Lower Broughton Road DS0000062672.V320414.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 about how well the home was meeting the National Minimum Standards. 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 one of the two residents, the manager, the staff team 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 was also used to produce this report. This included reports about events affecting residents that the home had informed the Commission about. 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 by the home to make sure that they had the skills, training and supervision 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 was involved in the home’s assessment of their needs, with the support of their family, before they were admitted, 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. Residents’ well being and independence was promoted by the use of assessments, care plans, risk assessments and behaviour management plans which were detailed and provided staff with clear instructions about how to meet each resident’s needs in the way that they would prefer. The home holds regular reviews of each resident’s needs and writes to residents’ relatives and the care managers about what was agreed at the review. Residents’ health needs were also reviewed regularly, including their diet, body weight and medication. 386 Lower Broughton Road DS0000062672.V320414.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 6 Various forms of communication, including the use of picture board, signing and observing body language were used to help residents to communicate and staff have training in communicating with residents. Residents’ skills were recorded in their care plans and risk assessments, so that staff can help them to be as independent as possible. Residents are assisted with personal development, social activities and taking park in activities in the community. They also have a holiday each year. Residents’ likes and dislikes were recorded and the food at the home is good. 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 residents. Residents benefit from the support of staff, who are in turn supported to meet residents’ assessed needs, through the use of clear guidance, supervision and access to training. Staff 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”. What has improved since the last inspection? What they could do better: Residents had a contract, but were unable to sign the contract personally. No provision was made for an advocate to sign on their behalf. Residents’ files needed to be re arranged, so information could be found more easily. Medicines were not always given to residents safely and staff did not have clear guidance about how medication should be given and side effects to look out for. 386 Lower Broughton Road DS0000062672.V320414.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 7 Overall, records were well maintained. However, the home needed to review the use of the “communications book”, so that residents’ confidentiality was protected. There were a number of health and safety matters that had not been fully addressed and the bathroom needed redecoration. 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. 386 Lower Broughton Road DS0000062672.V320414.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 386 Lower Broughton Road DS0000062672.V320414.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. The information provided to people assists them in deciding whether to live at the home. Assessments are carried out prior to admission. EVIDENCE: The case files for both of the two 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 no provision was made for these to be signed by an advocate. All 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. 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. 386 Lower Broughton Road DS0000062672.V320414.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. 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. Effective care planning and risk assessment was evident and residents were involved in all aspects of life of the home. 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. 386 Lower Broughton Road DS0000062672.V320414.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 11 Care plans and risk assessments were detailed and provided staff with clear guidance on how to meet each resident’s needs. 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. One of the residents was 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 residents not being able to communicate verbally, their relatives were consulted about their care. The home had a focus on promoting independence, this included being very positive about residents skills in care plans. 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, but that whatever abilities residents had were promoted. He added that the personal allowance for the residents was collected in cash each week and that they were supported to manage it on a daily basis. Residents’ files had clear records of their finances. 386 Lower Broughton Road DS0000062672.V320414.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. 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, participating in age and culturally appropriate activities 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 manager said that the residents have an annual holiday, and that this had previously been a group holiday. However it was planned that individual holidays would take place this year. 386 Lower Broughton Road DS0000062672.V320414.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 13 Residents have access to activities that give developmental and also involve themselves in community events such as “Broughton in Bloom”. Social activities are organised in both groups and individually. The menu at the home was seen to be varied and residents’ preferences and social likes and dislikes were recorded. Residents’ files also noted the importance of family contact and residents did have contact with their relatives. A recently recruited member of staff said that residents are “treated with respect, dignity and given choices” and are “not patronised”. 386 Lower Broughton Road DS0000062672.V320414.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. 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. EVIDENCE: Each resident had a detailed health action plan. These noted individual resident’s needs and choices, including a resident’s pattern of seizures and risk assessments about this aspect of health. 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. 386 Lower Broughton Road DS0000062672.V320414.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 15 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. Another good practice seen was the home’s policy that a second member of staff signed the MAR to witness a colleague’s administration of medication to a resident. However, as there was not always two members of staff at the home, this good practice has led to a problem whereby staff were seen to administer medication to one resident from a pot, rather than from the original monitored dosage blister pack. This is not safe practice. The residents’ files had some information about what their medication was prescribed for. Through discussion with the manager, it was suggested that residents would benefit from staff having clear guidance, in the form of a care plan, about each individual’s needs concerning medication, including how medication is given, potential side effects to look out for and compliance with taking medication. 386 Lower Broughton Road DS0000062672.V320414.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. 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 were aware of the home’s protection of vulnerable adults 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, since the previous inspection. 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. 386 Lower Broughton Road DS0000062672.V320414.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 17 Environment The intended outcomes for Standards 24 – 30 are: 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. Service users live in a homely, comfortable and safe environment. Service users’ bedrooms suit their needs and lifestyles. Service users’ bedrooms promote their independence. Service users’ toilets and bathrooms provide sufficient privacy and meet their individual needs. Shared spaces complement and supplement service users’ individual rooms. Service users have the specialist equipment they require to maximise their independence. The home is clean and hygienic. The Commission considers Standards 24, and 30 the key standards to be inspected. 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 where safety issues were for the most part addressed. EVIDENCE: The residents have single bedrooms, which had been personalised to meet their needs. There is a comfortable and homely lounge and a kitchen. The manager said that the oven in the kitchen was about to be replaced. Overall, the home was clean and tidy and had been decorated to an acceptable standard. However, the bathroom floor was worn and stained and needed to be replaced and the bathroom needed to be redecorated, as paint on the wall was blistered and peeling. The stair carpet was worn and ill fitting and the manager was requested to deal with it as soon as possible by the responsible individual. 386 Lower Broughton Road DS0000062672.V320414.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 18 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. Staff are supported to meet residents’ assessed needs, through the use of clear guidelines, supervision and access to training. EVIDENCE: The home’s staffing structure includes 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 who could communicate with, and understand the residents. 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 386 Lower Broughton Road DS0000062672.V320414.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 19 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. 386 Lower Broughton Road DS0000062672.V320414.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 20 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 procedures in the home promote the health, safety and welfare of residents and the manager is responsive to the need for further improvement. EVIDENCE: 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 encourages staff to progress. This staff member added that the manager was “good with residents”, and was “very calm” and “relaxed”. 386 Lower Broughton Road DS0000062672.V320414.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 21 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 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. The manager said that the residents would not be able to complete surveys. Therefore, reviews of residents’ needs were regularly conducted by the home to ensure that it meets planned objectives for each resident. This included three monthly reviews, which involved residents and relatives and also included sending a copy of the outcomes of the review to relatives and the care manager. A service questionnaire was also sent to residents’ relatives and the care manager with the review outcomes. Overall, health and safety procedures were established and monitored regularly. This included having comprehensive house risk assessments, monthly premises checks, a record of repairs and records of food and fridge temperatures. However, the fire risk assessment was basic. 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. 386 Lower Broughton Road DS0000062672.V320414.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 22 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 3 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 3 3 2 x 3 X 3 X 3 2 x 386 Lower Broughton Road DS0000062672.V320414.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 23 No. Are there any outstanding requirements from the last inspection? STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS This section sets out the actions, which must be taken so that the registered person/s meets the Care Standards Act 2000, Care Homes Regulations 2001 and the National Minimum Standards. The Registered Provider(s) must comply with the given timescales. No. 1. Standard YA20 Regulation 13(2) Requirement When medication is administered to residents it must be administered from the original pharmacist’s container and staff must always sign the medication administration record immediately after the medication is administered. The worn and ill fitting stair carpet must be re fitted, the worn and stained bathroom floor must be replaced and the bathroom must be redecorated, as paint on the wall was blistered and peeling. This will ensure the comfort and safety of people using the service. Timescale for action 16/05/07 2. YA24 23(2)(b) and 13(4) 16/05/07 386 Lower Broughton Road DS0000062672.V320414.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 24 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. All records concerning residents should consistently meet Data Protection guidelines. This will ensure that the confidentiality of people using the service is maintained. The home’s fire risk assessment should be reviewed consistently in accordance with the guidelines of Greater Manchester Fire Service. Risk assessments must also be completed concerning uncovered radiators in the home. This will ensure the safety of people using the service. 2. YA6 3 4. YA41 YA42 386 Lower Broughton Road DS0000062672.V320414.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 25 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 386 Lower Broughton Road DS0000062672.V320414.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 26 - 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!