Inspection on 15/05/07 for 73 Commonside

This inspection was carried out on 15th May 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 1 statutory requirements (actions the home must comply with) as a result of this inspection.

Other inspections for this house

73 Commonside 23/01/06

73 Commonside 16/06/05

73 Commonside 16/11/04

73 Commonside 26/07/04

Similar services:

Polesworth Group Friary Road

Polesworth Group Pooley Heights

Polesworth Group 32 Station Road

Polesworth Group 70 Long Street

Breme

Polesworth Group 64 Long Street

Polesworth Group 68 Long Street

10 Whitfield Avenue

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

CARE HOME ADULTS 18-65 73 Commonside Pensnett Brierley Hill, Dudley West Midlands DY5 4AJ Lead Inspector Deirdre Nash Key Unannounced Inspection 15th May 2007 02:00 73 Commonside DS0000024990.V335149.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 73 Commonside DS0000024990.V335149.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. 73 Commonside DS0000024990.V335149.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 3 SERVICE INFORMATION Name of service 73 Commonside Address Pensnett Brierley Hill, Dudley West Midlands DY5 4AJ 01384 813670 F/P 01384 76265 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) Commonside Care Ltd Ms Toni Elizabeth Quinn, Ms Pauline Nicklin Ms Toni Elizabeth Quinn Care Home 6 Category(ies) of Learning disability (6) registration, with number of places 73 Commonside DS0000024990.V335149.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 4 SERVICE INFORMATION Conditions of registration: Date of last inspection 23/01/06 Brief Description of the Service: 73 Commonside is registered to provide care to a maximum of six younger adults who have been diagnosed as having a learning disability. Commonside is located in Pensnett, which is situated between Kingswinford and Dudley. The home is in a mixed commercial and residential area, close to a main road where bus routes can be accessed to reach neighbouring areas. It is on a busy and noisy junction and has no front garden. A number of shops and other amenities are in close proximity of the home. The home itself comprises of two floors and provides a dining room, newly built lounge, laundry and conservatory, an office, four single and one double bedrooms. There are some bedrooms on the ground floor. It is well maintained externally and has a generous sized, attractive rear garden. Ramped access is provided from the new lounge to the patio area in the rear garden. A path from the patio accesses the homes frontage. Fees for 2007/8 are between £398 and £1139 per week. 73 Commonside DS0000024990.V335149.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 5 SUMMARY This is an overview of what the inspector found during the inspection. We looked at all of the information that we have received about this home since it was last inspected. We sent out comment cards to the home for residents to complete. Two were sent back to us completed by relatives on behalf of residents and the views expressed in them are shown in this report. We sent the manager of the home a questionnaire to fill out in order to bring us up to date with facts and figures about the home. This was returned to us in good time and the quality of the information sent to us greatly assisted the inspection. The Inspector called at the home without notice early afternoon, spoke with the manager, the deputy, and members of staff and met five of the residents. We had a lengthy conversation with one resident and the relative of another. We looked around the home and looked at records. The care of a sample of two residents was followed in this way to see if the home is providing a service that meets the national minimum standards. Residents appear generally well. They look healthy and well looked after and can communicate comfortably with staff. One said to us ‘ I love it here, I don’t want to go back to the other place’ What the service does well: The manager is qualified, experienced and registered with us and the home is run in the best interests of its residents. The home provides good personal care and makes sure that residents get routine as well as specialist health care including mental health care. The home has very good links with local and specialist hospitals, health centres and social workers. Managers and staff have got to know the residents well, welcome their families and are clearly committed to their welfare. The home produces clear and detailed individual plans for individuals care for staff to follow. These plans weigh up the benefits and risks involved in most ordinary daily events and leisure activities so that residents can live an active life in relative safety. Residents have some choice about their meals and staff do encourage healthy eating. 73 Commonside DS0000024990.V335149.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 6 Staff are properly recruited, supervised and trained and the home checks the quality of the service that it offers. Residents are helped to keep busy, pursue hobbies and interests, develop skills and get out and about regularly. Most residents have their own bedroom and residents throughout the day use these as they please. 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. The summary of this inspection report can be made available in other formats on request. 73 Commonside DS0000024990.V335149.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 7 DETAILS OF INSPECTOR FINDINGS CONTENTS Choice of Home (Standards 1–5) Individual Needs and Choices (Standards 6-10) Lifestyle (Standards 11-17) Personal and Healthcare Support (Standards 18-21) Concerns, Complaints and Protection (Standards 22-23) Environment (Standards 24-30) Staffing (Standards 31-36) Conduct and Management of the Home (Standards 37 – 43) Scoring of Outcomes Statutory Requirements Identified During the Inspection 73 Commonside DS0000024990.V335149.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 8 Choice of Home The intended outcomes for Standards 1 – 5 are: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Prospective service users have the information they need to make an informed choice about where to live. Prospective users’ individual aspirations and needs are assessed. Prospective service users know that the home that they will choose will meet their needs and aspirations. Prospective service users have an opportunity to visit and to “test drive” the home. Each service user has an individual written contract or statement of terms and conditions with the home. The Commission consider Standard 2 the key standard to be inspected. JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for the following standard(s): 1, 3 Quality in this outcome area is good This judgement has been made using available evidence including a visit to this service. The home has good information about its services and does not admit people that it cannot properly look after. Residents live in a home that can meet their needs. EVIDENCE: The home has made no new admissions for three years. We saw annual social services ‘review of placement’ reports on the care files of both residents whose care we chose to ‘track’. The home has a written Statement of Purpose and Service User Guide both have been updated this year. The home currently cares for two people who are aged 60. The manager tells us that they are likely to want to remain there beyond 65 years. The home will need to show us at that time that it can still meet their needs and this should be set out in the statement of purpose when it next updated. 73 Commonside DS0000024990.V335149.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 9 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, 9 Quality in this outcome area is good This judgement has been made using available evidence including a visit to this service. The home produces detailed and clear plans for the daily and nightly care and support of each resident. Although staff control of some aspects is assumed without written justification, many key risks involved in daily living are assessed and managed to promote independence. EVIDENCE: We looked at the care files of two residents. Both files contained a comprehensive, clear and well set out written service user plan that includes how staff are to assist each individual with decision making. These are signed by the resident, key worker and manager and showed review in March this year. We interviewed the key worker for one of these residents and she was clear about the content of the plan. Conversation with the resident confirmed 73 Commonside DS0000024990.V335149.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 10 that staff help her with personal care in the way described in the plan. There is also a ‘lifestyle agreement’ in each file. We saw a number of risk assessments in each file and they generally support managing risks for independence rather than over protection. There were no risk assessments for self-administration of medication or front door key holding however. Staff spoken to about residents taking control of their own medication assumed that as medicines and drugs were locked up centrally there could be no question of individuals looking after their own. Conversation with the manager showed that the risk assessments ‘in her head’ are that it is unlikely that any resident could currently safely manage and keep their own medicines. This assessment should be committed to paper to show that it has been arrived at as a duty of care decision for each individual and not just administrative convenience. One resident that we spoke to told us that she would like to have a front door key. Decisions about this should also be risk assessed in writing. We saw completed service user satisfaction questionnaires in each file and this shows that residents are consulted about the quality of the service provided by the home. 73 Commonside DS0000024990.V335149.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 11 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, 14, 15, 16, 17 Quality in this outcome area is good This judgement has been made using available evidence including a visit to this service. Although higher staffing levels would increase the flexibility of individual community contact, the home has a strong commitment to enabling residents to develop their skills and individuals are supported to identify their goals and work to achieve them. Residents have a life style generally suited to their age and interests. EVIDENCE: We saw a number of documents in each file of our tracked residents describing activities and occupation. These included an activity action plan focussed on a specific goal such as helping with a meal in the kitchen. One resident in our sample talked about the three days each week that she spends working as a volunteer in the kitchen of a local school. We saw Vocational Opportunities Reviews for this placement on file. Three residents at the home had just returned from a holiday in Egypt supported by staff from 73 Commonside DS0000024990.V335149.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 12 the home. We heard them talking about it and sharing their photographs with the other residents around a table. This is very positive. Staff spoken to told us that they do not keep any daily records while on holiday with residents. A daily note should be made of the health and well being of each individual in the care of the home wherever they are so the home can account for how it looks after them. One resident in our sample confirmed that her family come to the home to see her and that she goes to visit them. She also confirmed what her key worker told us about individual shopping trips and concert attendance with a key worker. There is a list of family birthdays in residents’ files and a record of celebrations and special events that they have been engaged in. We sat in on part of a staff meeting and heard that residents had asked if they could have a ‘dinner party’ at home. Staff were asked by the manager to make sure that this happened over the coming weekend. We asked if residents go out on Friday, Saturday and Sunday nights and were told by staff and residents that they don’t but go out some weekday evenings to ‘their clubs’. It’s not clear whether it is a positive choice to socialise in the evening only in groups of other disabled people and we make comment later in the report about staffing levels over weekend evenings. The home should explore this. We saw nothing on care files about supporting personal and intimate relationships and this important aspect of an adult’s life should be addressed in consultation with them. We saw fresh fruit, vegetables and salad vegetables in the kitchen as well as fresh milk. There was a beef casserole slow cooking in the oven for an evening meal while we were there and the house smelled of good food by dinnertime. 73 Commonside DS0000024990.V335149.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 13 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, 20 Quality in this outcome area is good This judgement has been made using available evidence including a visit to this service. The home provides health and personal care and support based on individuals needs and makes sure that residents get specialist treatments. Residents are well looked after. EVIDENCE: We saw comprehensive records, correspondence and assessments on both care files in our tracking sample about the physical and mental health of residents including routine dentistry and eye care and use of general local healthcare professionals as appropriate. For one resident the home has worked with family to get deterioration in condition properly investigated by specialists. We saw evidence that another resident has been offered the services of the Health Facilitation team at hospital to help her prepare for attending for some surgery and reducing her potential distress about it. 73 Commonside DS0000024990.V335149.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 14 Listening to the staff meeting showed us that staff and managers know the residents health and personal care needs well and take a great interest in them. We saw that the medication taken by each individual is clearly listed in their care file and staff spoken to confirmed that they undertook on site training from a specialist to administer a particular treatment to a resident. We have already referred to the need for written risk assessments to justify individuals not holding and controlling their own medication. 73 Commonside DS0000024990.V335149.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 15 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, 23 Quality in this outcome area is good This judgement has been made using available evidence including a visit to this service. The home promotes an open culture where residents feel safe and supported to share any concerns in relation to their protection and safety. EVIDENCE: The manager reports that the home has received no complaints since the last inspection and we have had none about the home. We saw a complaint procedure in the file of each resident in our sample. One relative that we spoke to said that she doesn’t know about the homes complaint procedure but felt confident that the manager would act on any concern that she raised. Two other relatives that commented in writing to us say they are very satisfied with the care that the home provides. As we were leaving the home the residents were gathering around the dining table for a house meeting. We asked how the holiday in Egypt was paid for. Managers told us that the home pays for one holiday within Britain for each resident every year and pays for the staffing to facilitate a second holiday abroad if a resident wants it. The home saves a portion of the resident’s personal allowance each week to pay the rest of the costs. This money is pooled in one account bearing the names of the proprietors. Although there is no indication of impropriety this is not 73 Commonside DS0000024990.V335149.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 16 good accounting or good care practice. Individual’s monies must not be pooled and must be kept in accounts bearing their own name for their protection. The manager has agreed to improve this arrangement. The home manages resident’s spending money and we saw it stored separately and securely. We saw individual records of residents spending money with all transactions signed by two staff members and the deputy manager’s signature showing a regular check on each account. Staff that we spoke to are clear about their responsibility to report any concerns that they have about the well being or safety of a resident regardless of the circumstances. The manager gave us an example of one of them doing so recently about an alleged incident at a day service that the home then reported to social services. All staff undertook protection from abuse training during 2006. 73 Commonside DS0000024990.V335149.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, 30 Quality in this outcome area is good This judgement has been made using available evidence including a visit to this service. Although the neighbourhood is showing symptoms of economic decline, the house is clean, fresh and well maintained. Residents enjoy a comfortable home. EVIDENCE: We looked around the house and two residents showed us their bedrooms. One is a shared bedroom. The home is kept clean and fresh. It filled with sunlight while we were there but is also very cosy. The rear garden is well kept, attractive and inviting. One resident in our sample showed us her summerhouse and garden ornaments. There are two bedrooms on the ground floor and the staircase is very steep. This may become an issue in the future for the two residents over 60 years of age. 73 Commonside DS0000024990.V335149.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 18 The kitchen floor covering has been replaced and new worktops are at the house waiting to be fitted. Paint and floor coverings have been refreshed in some bedrooms and bathrooms and a bathroom has been refitted. The house is on a very busy road, junction and bus route. There is less than a metre of space between the front door and the railings on to the street but the rear of the property is spacious. The side drive leads into the back garden and we saw staff using this way into and out of the house. There is parking for two or three cars on the drive. The traffic noise is high and buses and trucks turn out of Tiled House Road very close to the front windows. The windows are all double glazed and the residents don’t seem to mind the noise when they are open. The home reported an incident to us a few months ago involving a man trying to kick open the front door and break a window in the early hours of the morning shouting for some one who doesn’t live at the property. At the same time a car collided with the railings on the other side of the road. Staff responded well but only one member of staff is on the premises at night. We saw police attending a disused public house nearby that had its front window smashed through. We did not feel confident about leaving our car parked nearby. The home has no lone working policy and we have recommended that it should so that staff know exactly what the limits of their responsibilities are in incidents like the one above and what support they can expect. We saw keys in bedroom door locks but when we asked a resident if she has a front door key she said no. We have mentioned already that did not see a front door key risk assessment in either of the care files that we looked at. 73 Commonside DS0000024990.V335149.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 19 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, 33, 34, 35, 36. Quality in this outcome area is good This judgement has been made using available evidence including a visit to this service. The home recruits, trains and supervises its staff well. Residents have confidence in the staff that care for them. EVIDENCE: The manager tells us that over half of the staff group have attained or are now completing their NVQ Awards in Health and Social Care. We heard discussions about the quality of the different tuition providers that staff at the home have experienced during the staff meeting that we attended. Four staff have undertaken the Learning Disability Award Framework Induction Programme and two new staff are joining it this year. Three staff have also done the Foundation programme. Three staff at the home are qualified work based NVQ Assessors. Staff that we spoke to describe their work in a professional manner and have a good understanding of the principles and values of social care. The home commissioned an independent consultant to quality assure the service last year. The consultants audit report dated March 2007 shows that 73 Commonside DS0000024990.V335149.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 20 minor shortfalls in the recruitment and selection procedure found in September last year have been put right. Staff rosters show two members of staff on duty for each shift and one sleeping in each night. This is adequate for the needs of current residents while they are in the house. However the shift pattern for weekend evenings through May shows that there are two staff on duty until 8pm and then only one on duty until next morning. This is not sufficient to allow residents to be out after 8pm at the weekend and on bank holidays. We discussed this with the manager. She said. ‘We go out whenever there is something to go to. Going out just because its Friday or Saturday night would be institutionalised’. This is a reasonable point, as the roster stands however it is difficult to see how residents who need staff support could go out individually on these evenings. Staffing levels at these times should be reviewed so that residents are not confined to the house on weekend evenings if they don’t wish to be. The manager reports that the home has not used agency or casual staff in the last twelve months. Staff spoken to confirm that they get regular one to one supervision sessions and an annual appraisal with their manager and this is supported by the independent consultants audit report. 73 Commonside DS0000024990.V335149.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 21 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, 38, 39, 41, 42, 43 Quality in this outcome area is excellent This judgement has been made using available evidence including a visit to this service. The management and administration of the home is based on openness and respect and the manager is qualified, competent and experienced. Residents live in a home that is safe and run in their best interests. EVIDENCE: The manager is qualified, experienced and registered with us. The deputy manager is qualified at NVQ Level 3 and although both work regularly on shift looking after the residents, findings throughout this report show that the administration and business planning is properly attended to. All of the records that we saw are clear, compete and legible. Staff say that they enjoy working at the home, and that residents have a good life there. 73 Commonside DS0000024990.V335149.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 22 The staff meeting that we attended showed an open and inclusive leadership style. The manager returned the pre inspection questionnaire to us in good time and gave us clear and well-organised information about the home. We have received detailed monthly reports from the home and have been informed in writing of any incidents that have occurred that affect the residents. We saw a certificate on file that supported information in the pre inspection questionnaire showing that the fire safety equipment in the home was last serviced in April 2007. The staff training matrix shows that health and safety training is updated. We saw food safety certificates on display in the kitchen. There is no need to display them in a care home of this size and type as it gives the residents kitchen an institutional look. Referred to above the home owners commissioned an independent consultant during 2006 to audit the quality of the home and sent us copies of those reports. We saw a certificate for insurance cover. The home has an all female staff team currently and although there is one male resident it is not therefore able to offer any choice of the gender of staff giving personal and intimate care. 73 Commonside DS0000024990.V335149.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 23 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 3 3 3 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 3 32 3 33 3 34 3 35 3 36 3 CONDUCT AND MANAGEMENT OF THE HOME Standard No 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 Score 3 3 x 3 x LIFESTYLES Standard No Score 11 x 12 3 13 3 14 3 15 3 16 3 17 3 PERSONAL AND HEALTHCARE SUPPORT Standard No 18 19 20 21 Score 3 3 3 x 3 3 3 x 3 3 3 73 Commonside DS0000024990.V335149.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 24 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 YA23 Regulation 13 Requirement Residents must be protected from potential loss or abuse of their holiday savings. Money belonging to several individuals must not be pooled or kept in accounts that do not bear their name. Timescale for action 01/08/07 RECOMMENDATIONS These recommendations relate to National Minimum Standards and are seen as good practice for the Registered Provider/s to consider carrying out. No. 1. 2. 3. 4. Refer to Standard YA9 YA13 YA15 YA24 Good Practice Recommendations Limitations placed on resident’s management of parts their lives should be transparently justified. Residents should be able to spend evenings out at the weekends with staff support if they wish. Residents should be able to participate in personal and intimate relationships with the support that they need. Residents should be confident that they and their staff are as safe as possible through the night. 73 Commonside DS0000024990.V335149.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 25 Commission for Social Care Inspection Halesowen Record Management Unit Mucklow Office Park, West Point, Ground Floor Mucklow Hill Halesowen West Midlands B62 8DA 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 73 Commonside DS0000024990.V335149.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!