Please note that the information on this website is now out of date. It is planned that we will update and relaunch, but for now is of historical interest only and we suggest you visit cqc.org.uk
Inspection on 07/10/06 for 6 Harrow View
Also see our care home review for 6 Harrow View for more information
This inspection was carried out on 7th October 2006.
CSCI has not published a star rating for this report, though using similar criteria we estimate that the report is Good. The way we rate inspection reports is consistent for all houses, though please be aware that this may be different from an official CSCI judgement.
The inspector found there to be outstanding requirements from the previous inspection report. These are things the inspector asked to be changed, but found they had not done. The inspector also made 6 statutory requirements (actions the home must comply with) as a result of this inspection.
What follows are excerpts from this inspection report. For more information read the full report on the next tab.
What the care home does well
What has improved since the last inspection?
The majority of the requirements from the previous inspection report have been addressed.There was good evidence on this occasion of staff knowing how each service user communicates. Interactions with service users were generally very positive and supportive, respecting service users` rights and decisions, and encouraging their responsibilities. There was a clear sense of staff working together during the inspection. There has been a quality audit of service users` representatives`, and staff members`, views about the service. Actions from this were being developed at the time of the inspection.
What the care home could do better:
Management must make every effort to enable staff handovers to be conducted at a suitably confidential level whilst still enabling service users` needs to be met. The handover seen during the inspection took place within easy hearing distance of service users, which compromises the handover`s confidential nature. Some daily records were found to make broad judgements about service users` behaviours without explaining the facts about what happened. This can lead to assumptions about the service users and can be disrespectful. It also contrasts sharply with some detailed and insightful entries. Management must address this. There are also a couple of minor environmental issues to address, a need for care plans to refer to the minimal amount of night-care needed, and for rosters to be fully accurate.