Inspection on 12/01/07 for 82 Chaucer Road

This inspection was carried out on 12th January 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

82 Chaucer Road 14/05/08

82 Chaucer Road 20/02/06

82 Chaucer Road 01/12/05

82 Chaucer Road 19/10/04

Similar services:

Coopers Mill Ltd

Bramley Avenue (73)

Paradise Lodge

Grangewood

Upaya Ananda

Newton Court (1-2)

Kings Lane (32)

Pemdale

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

CARE HOME ADULTS 18-65 82 Chaucer Road Bedford Beds MK40 2AP Lead Inspector Mr Pursotamraj Hirekar Unannounced Inspection 12th January 2007 12:45 82 Chaucer Road DS0000060926.V326612.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 82 Chaucer Road DS0000060926.V326612.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. 82 Chaucer Road DS0000060926.V326612.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 3 SERVICE INFORMATION Name of service 82 Chaucer Road Address Bedford Beds MK40 2AP 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) 01234 216319 Caretech Community Services Limited Mrs Karen Elizabeth Barringer Care Home 8 Category(ies) of Learning disability (8) registration, with number of places 82 Chaucer Road DS0000060926.V326612.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 4 SERVICE INFORMATION Conditions of registration: 1. 2. 3. 4. Number of places: 8 Age: 18-65 years Category: All persons admitted to the home must have Learning Disabilities as their primary assessed need. No service users with additional physical disabilities shall be admitted, unless it can be demonstrated that the home can meet their needs by way of accessible private and communal space and appropriate aids/adaptations. 20th February 2006 Date of last inspection Brief Description of the Service: 82 Chaucer Road was first registered in June 2004 as a care home for up to six adults with learning disabilities. Caretech Community Services Limited who provides a number of homes for people with learning disabilities nationwide owns this home. The stated purpose of the home is to provide care and support to people who have diverse needs associated with their learning disability, such as behaviour that challenges needs on the autistic spectrum and people who require alternative communication systems. The home is not suited to people with mobility problems although ground floor accommodation is available. The home is a refurbished Victorian villa in a residential area on the west side of Bedford. Accommodation comprises of a large lounge, dining room/conservatory, kitchen, laundry room, and office on the ground floor. All bedrooms are for single occupancy and have en-suite facilities. There are bathing and toilet facilities on both floors. The home is now registered for 8 beds and has additional space for the visitors. The weekly and gross service cost is around £1,450/- per service user. 82 Chaucer Road DS0000060926.V326612.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 5 SUMMARY This is an overview of what the inspector found during the inspection. This is the report of the unannounced inspection carried out on 12/01/07 by Pursotamraj Hirekar over 3 ½ hours. The deputy manager coordinated the inspection through out. The method of inspection included study of care plans, risk assessments, personnel records, staff deployment duty rota, relevant care delivery documents, discussions with deputy manager and staff, conversation with service users’ and partial tour of the building. The pre-inspection questionnaire information provided by the home and service users’ survey forms data were included for analysis and preparation of this report as well. What the service does well: What has improved since the last inspection? The requirements made in previous inspection report have been met which included. The home had individual procedures and ‘behaviour protocol and specific programme’ including detailed preventive steps for all service users’ with challenging behaviour problems in their respective care plans. The home had ensured proper care and appropriate treatment of service users’ with challenging behaviour and also ensured, in which service users participate are so far practicably free from avoidable risks to health or safety are identified and eliminated. The home had ensured that at all times records specified in schedule-2 are available for inspection. The home had ensured adequate shared space to the service users’ and suitable facilities are provided for service users’ to meet their visitors. The home had ensured that at all times records specified in scheduled-4 are available for inspection. 82 Chaucer Road DS0000060926.V326612.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 6 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. 82 Chaucer Road DS0000060926.V326612.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 82 Chaucer Road DS0000060926.V326612.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 and 2 Quality in this outcome area is good. This judgement has been made using available evidence including a visit to this service. The home had made appropriate arrangements for the needs assessment of the service users’ and the service users’ were aware of the care and services they would receive from the home prior to their admission. EVIDENCE: The home had made appropriate arrangements for the assessment of needs and aspirations of the service users’. However, the home had 1 new admission, whose needs were assessed by the staff prior to the admission. This service user’s contract of services were terminated after a couple of months, as it was experienced that the home was not an appropriate place for the growing needs of the service users. The deputy manager had said that some of the behavioural needs of the service user did not surface during the pre-admission assessment of the needs. The home had developed individual procedures and ‘behaviour protocol and specific programme’ including detailed preventive steps for all service users’ with challenging behaviour problems in their respective care plans. 82 Chaucer Road DS0000060926.V326612.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 9 The home had ensured proper care and appropriate treatment of service users’ with challenging behaviour and also ensured, in which service users participate are so far practicably free from avoidable risks to health or safety are identified and eliminated. The home had recently revised the service users’ contracts – statement of services. The service users’ and their family members signatures were obtained, except for 1 service user family member who need to sign the contract. The commission had carried out a service users’ survey prior to this inspection, to get the feedback from the service users’ and their family members about the services they receive at the home. In response to the question, which kind of home would be most suitable for them, all the 6 service users’ have said that they had the opportunity to make an informed decision with the help of their family members and social workers. Some quotes from the service users’ survey in their own words: Service user –1 said ‘Due to my behaviour at my previous home it was felt that this was an indication that I needed to find a more suitable place to live. This decision was supported by my social worker and care manager’ Service user – 2 said ‘Due to the nature of my autism it was` felt that a transition process would cause me great distress so on my behalf my mum visited Chaucer road to meet staff and check the suitability of the home’. Service user – 3 said ‘Due to my learning disability I do have problems with communication. Due to my behaviour it was felt that I needed a more suitable environment to live. This was supported by my family and social worker’. Service user – 4 said ‘I like living here’. Service user – 5 said ‘I visited the home because I find the home is right for me’. 82 Chaucer Road DS0000060926.V326612.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 good. This judgement has been made using available evidence including a visit to this service. The home had made appropriate arrangements for assessing the changing needs and reflecting the same in the individual service user’s care plans. EVIDENCE: The home had developed comprehensive care plans and they were reviewed regularly. The care plan reviews focussed on the desired outcomes and proposed action. These care plans were based on the needs and risk assessments of service users’ which included: use of laundry room and it’s facilities, BBQ, being in the sun, swimming, wall lights, walk alone, making hot drinks, not responding to fire alarm, garden use, using vehicle, choking and swallowing, finance, managing personal belongings, undertaking domestic tasks, using kitchen facilities, using bathroom facilities, information on other service users behaviour, witnessing adverse behaviour, contingency planning, town visit, using kettle, and fire alarm. The care plans were updated and were 82 Chaucer Road DS0000060926.V326612.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 11 recorded clearly to help staff understand and be aware when attending service users’. The care plans included details about specific programme and support plan, prepared for each individual service user. Apart from the routine review and update of the care plans, the home also had an inbuilt mechanism to review and update care plans as and when necessary when needs of the service users’ change. The home had developed health action plans for each individual service user, which included information such as: when Iam ill, who supports me with my health, medication, eyes, ears, skin, chest, going to toilet, smoking, drinking alcohol, drugs and my health action plan was scheduled to be reviewed every 6 months. All the 6 service users’ who replied to the commission’s survey have said that always they make decisions about what they do each day during the day evening and at weekend. The above response from the service users’ indicate that the home was providing necessary support to enable service users’ lead independent life style. 82 Chaucer Road DS0000060926.V326612.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 good. This judgement has been made using available evidence including a visit to this service. The service users’ dietary needs were assessed and choice of menu and timings were maintained, in the interest of the service users’. The service users’ were satisfied with the day care and social activities carried out by the home. EVIDENCE: The home had developed individual specific activity plan in response to service users’ assessed needs; the activity plans were presented on a weekly basis. Service users had the freedom to make choice and participate in various activities the home encourages, which include; TV, music centre, arts and crafts, computer, cooking, self help, fitness, animal husbandry, horticulture, pubs and restaurant, café, cinema, library, walks and drives. Day care activity plan was compared with actual activity of the service users’ engagement on 82 Chaucer Road DS0000060926.V326612.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 13 this inspection and found each service user activity plan matched with their engagement on this day. 1 service user who had stopped going to college from September 2006, the home had made effort and was in the process of arranging healthy steps to employment programme with the support of jobcentreplus. The home had an open atmosphere and the service users’ had the opportunity to express their choice of food to be included in the daily menu and were happy with the food menu and meal timings provided by the home. 82 Chaucer Road DS0000060926.V326612.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. The home had made appropriate arrangement s for the delivery and care of the personal and health care needs of the service users’ and the service users’ have expressed their satisfaction about the same. EVIDENCE: The manager, staffs, and the service users’ had good working relationships that enabled service users to freely express their views and receive appropriate care from the staffs of the home. The home had made appropriate arrangements with the various external professionals to meet the assessed health and personal needs of the service users’ they were general practitioner, district nurse, community psychiatrist, occupational therapist, speech therapist, dentist, audiologist, optician, and chiropodist. 82 Chaucer Road DS0000060926.V326612.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 15 The staffs those who have received medication training carry out the task of administration of medication to the service users’. The home had maintained records pertaining to the medication issued and receipt, including monthly weight chart of the service users’. 82 Chaucer Road DS0000060926.V326612.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. The service users’ were aware of the complaints procedure and were confident to use the same when necessary. EVIDENCE: The home had a robust complaints policy and procedures. In response to the commission’s survey, all the 6 service users’ have said that they know who to speak to when they are not happy and were aware how to make complaints. Some quotes from the survey as said by the service users: Service user – 1 said ‘When Iam not happy and I need help with something I go to the staff and I talk them to the problem’ Service user – 2 said ‘although the complaints procedure has been explained to me I may not understand it. My key worker would support me if I needed to make a complaint and an advocate would also be involved if necessary’. Service user – 3 said ‘I would talk to the manager if Iam not happy’. There was an incident at the home of Money went missing from petty cash / safe and from a service user’s room. Police were involved and a strategy meeting was held on 09/01/07 and the area manager was to follow up the 82 Chaucer Road DS0000060926.V326612.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 17 results of the strategy meeting. The home held internal refresher training for the staffs on POVA. The home had planned to undertake a risk assessment of safety of money of service user on the 16/01/07. After the incident, currently, the staff monitor the service user’s money on every shift and two staff members sign the verification. The new procedures were being used across all the service users’ who use money on their own. The home had also ordered a new digital safe to avoid any tampering with the keys. 82 Chaucer Road DS0000060926.V326612.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. The home was maintained clean and tidy. However, the service users’ have said the home was clean sometimes. EVIDENCE: The home had carried out various environmental checks with the help of staff and external personnel. The various check included: fire officers visit, fire drill, weekly fire alarm, central heating, EHO visit, water temperature checks, food temperature checks, fridge and freezer temperature checks and monthly emergency lighting. 82 Chaucer Road DS0000060926.V326612.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 19 There was mixed response from the service users’ to the survey for the questions on ‘is the home fresh and clean’. Only 2 services users’ said the home is always fresh and clean where as 4 service users have said sometimes. Some quotes in the words of the service users regarding the cleanliness: Service user – 1 said ‘I assist the staff with cleaning parts of the home including my room and on other days other residents will assist’. Service user – 2 said ‘I think the fridges should be clean and tidy and the kitchen floor should be nice and clean’. 82 Chaucer Road DS0000060926.V326612.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, 34 and 35 Quality in this outcome area is good. This judgement has been made using available evidence including a visit to this service. The home’s policy on staff recruitment was comprehensive. The home had maintained appropriate staff ratio with appropriate skill mix, which had positive impact on the service users’. EVIDENCE: The home had maintained adequate staffing levels and skill mix that complement the assessed needs of the service users’. The home had undertaken staffs training in autism, challenging behaviour, augmentative communication systems, non-violent crisis intervention, medication, fire safety, food hygiene, manual handling, infection control, first aid, health and safety, and makaton. The home had appropriate arrangements for the staffs’ supervision and was carried out as scheduled. Staff –1supervision was carried out on 15/1206 and 08/01/07, staff – 2 supervision was carried out on 28/11/06 and 04/12/06, staff – 3 supervision was carried out 09/11/06 and 28/12/06, staff – 4 82 Chaucer Road DS0000060926.V326612.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 21 supervision was carried out on 27/12/06 and 08/01/07. The supervision records were signed both by the supervisor and the supervisee. The home had 1 member of staff from agency, as per the duty rota for the week starting 08/01/07 and as agreed with the commission the home had maintained information that included CRB number, date of employment, qualification, and training. There were mixed responses from the service users’ to the survey for the questions ‘do the staff treat you well and do the carers listen and act on what you say’. 4 service users’ have said yes always and 2 service users’ have said yes sometime. Some quotes in the words of service users: Service user – 1 said ‘I don’t like staff when they upset me and they shouldn’t say I upset other people’ Service user – 2 said ‘Yes they do listen to what I say’ Service user – 3 said ‘Staff support me in being as independent as possible. They communicate to me on my level of understanding and when I request something they assist me in getting it’ Service user – 4 said ‘Although I have to wait for sometimes’. Service user – 5 said ‘To busy not enough staff’. 82 Chaucer Road DS0000060926.V326612.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, 40 and 42 Quality in this outcome area is good. This judgement has been made using available evidence including a visit to this service. The home manager had maintained high standards of care delivery and good working relations with the service users’ and their family members, staffs and relevant professionals which had been useful for appropriate care delivery and in meeting the service users’ assessed needs. However, the recent incident at the home regarding theft of money is a cause of concern. EVIDENCE: Overall the home was managed well, the manager, staffs and the service users’ had good working relation that enabled achieving quality of life goals of the service users’. The home had maintained records that were applicable to the service, which included fire, gas, water, and electricity. 82 Chaucer Road DS0000060926.V326612.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 23 The home had mentioned in their pre-inspection questionnaire that the home has been using the company policies and procedures from 1989 and the same was reviewed on the 01/08/06. These policies and procedures included: adult protection, administration of medication, COSHH, code of conduct, equal opportunity, health and safety, racial harassment, staff recruitment, privacy and dignity. However, on this inspection the deputy manager had informed that the home had no policy and procedure in place with regard to looking after money of service users’ and looking after the safe. The deputy manager had also informed that the home had introduced new procedure to look after staff money after the incident of money went missing and the home also had plans to develop a policy towards this. The home needed to revisit the existing policy of ‘use of service user monies’ and amend to include aspects of service users money and their safety. The home was also working on various policy and procedure documents to develop them into appropriate formats for service users to read. The home had a system of preparing monthly co-ordination report which is considered appropriate as part of the internal monitoring and quality assurance mechanism to ensure the well being of the service users’. The current manager had decided to change her job by the end of January 2007 and the home was in the process for a replacement. However, towards this end the commission had not received an update yet. 82 Chaucer Road DS0000060926.V326612.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 3 3 X 4 X 5 X INDIVIDUAL NEEDS AND CHOICES Standard No 6 7 8 9 10 Score CONCERNS AND COMPLAINTS Standard No Score 22 3 23 3 ENVIRONMENT Standard No Score 24 3 25 X 26 X 27 X 28 X 29 X 30 3 STAFFING Standard No Score 31 X 32 3 33 X 34 3 35 3 36 X CONDUCT AND MANAGEMENT OF THE HOME Standard No 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 Score 3 3 X 3 X LIFESTYLES Standard No Score 11 X 12 3 13 3 14 X 15 3 16 3 17 3 PERSONAL AND HEALTHCARE SUPPORT Standard No 18 19 20 21 Score 3 3 3 X 3 X 3 2 X 3 X 82 Chaucer Road DS0000060926.V326612.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 YA40 Good Practice Recommendations The home needed to revisit the existing policy of ‘use of service user monies’ and amend to include aspects of safety of service users money. 82 Chaucer Road DS0000060926.V326612.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 26 Commission for Social Care Inspection Bedfordshire & Luton Area Office Clifton House 4a Goldington Road Bedford MK40 3NF 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 82 Chaucer Road DS0000060926.V326612.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!