Inspection on 27/04/07 for Alfred House Residential Care Home

This inspection was carried out on 27th April 2007.

CSCI has not published a star rating for this report, though using similar criteria we estimate that the report is Excellent. 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

Alfred House Residential Care... 19/01/06

Alfred House Residential Care... 31/08/05

Alfred House Residential Care... 10/02/05

Alfred House Residential Care... 03/08/04

Similar services:

Sunny Bank (P.R.S.) Ltd

Ashwood Court Unit 1

Thornton Lodge

Barkerhouse Road (123)

Fernhaven

Thames House

Creative Support

Tudor Bank Ltd

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

CARE HOME ADULTS 18-65 Alfred House Residential Care Home 29 - 31 Horne Street Bury Lancs BL9 9BW Lead Inspector Sarah Tomlinson Unannounced Inspection 27th April 2007 09:30 Alfred House Residential Care Home DS0000008420.V337603.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 Alfred House Residential Care Home DS0000008420.V337603.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. Alfred House Residential Care Home DS0000008420.V337603.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 3 SERVICE INFORMATION Name of service Alfred House Residential Care Home Address 29 - 31 Horne Street Bury Lancs BL9 9BW 0161 764 2442 F/P 0161 764 2442 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) Mrs Margaret Ann Partridge Mrs Margaret Ann Partridge Care Home 8 Category(ies) of Mental disorder, excluding learning disability or registration, with number dementia (8) of places Alfred House Residential Care Home DS0000008420.V337603.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 4 SERVICE INFORMATION Conditions of registration: None Date of last inspection 19th January 2006 Brief Description of the Service: Alfred House is a small, privately owned care home, providing support for up to 8 adults with mental health needs. The home consists of 2 adjoining, terraced properties that have been converted into one house. The home is in a residential area near Bury town centre. It is close to bus routes, shops and other local amenities. The home is similar to others in the street and is not distinguishable as a care home. It has 2 lounges (smoking and no smoking), a dining room, kitchen and laundry room. There are 8 single bedrooms, 6 on the first floor and 2 on the second floor. There are 2 bathrooms. There is a garden at the front and an enclosed paved area with seating at the back. On-street parking is available adjacent to the home. The owner is also the manager. She is a qualified mental health nurse and works in the home on a daily basis. Alfred House Residential Care Home DS0000008420.V337603.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 5 SUMMARY This is an overview of what the inspector found during the inspection. The visit, which the home was not told about beforehand, lasted 9 hours. During this time we watched what was going on and talked with 6 of the 7 residents, the owner/manager and 3 carers. We also looked around the communal rooms, two bedrooms and the garden, and at some of the home’s paperwork. Six relatives and all of the 7 residents had earlier returned comment cards to us about the home (with a follow up telephone call made to one relative). These views are also included. What the service does well: What has improved since the last inspection? What they could do better: There was just one recommendation, about making sure new staff were trained to be as knowledgeable as the rest of the staff about mental health. Alfred House Residential Care Home DS0000008420.V337603.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 6 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. Alfred House Residential Care Home DS0000008420.V337603.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 Alfred House Residential Care Home DS0000008420.V337603.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, 2 and 3. Quality in this outcome area is good. This judgement has been made using available evidence including a visit to this service. Prospective residents can expect the home to have a thorough understanding of (and ability to meet) their needs, thereby promoting a safe and suitable placement. EVIDENCE: There had been no long term changes to the resident group. One resident had lived at Alfred House since it opened in 1995, whilst the remaining residents had lived there for a number of years. There was one vacancy. Since the last inspection one person had come on an emergency, short term placement but had since left. We looked at their care file. Detailed assessment and risk information had been received and recorded, although a copy of their CPA care plan/care management assessment had not been obtained. We reminded the owner/manager that as part of the home’s assessment process, she must insist on receiving a copy from the referring community psychiatric nurse or social worker (a facsimile copy would be acceptable for an emergency placement). Alfred House Residential Care Home DS0000008420.V337603.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 9 Since the last inspection, the Statement of Purpose had been updated to reflect staff training. As part of its next annual review (due shortly), we advised the provision of emergency/short term care as well as long term care needs to be added (and also included in the Service User’s Guide). The forthcoming new smoke-free law (from 1st July 2007) was also discussed. We confirmed that care homes were exempt, with owners/managers being able to designate specific rooms for smoking as long as this was formally recorded (in the Statement of Purpose and Service User’s Guide). Details of the government’s website were given. Good practice was noted, as the Service User’s Guide was part of a larger ‘welcome folder’ containing practical, local information for new residents. The owner/manager planned to update the Service User’s Guide to make it easier to read. Ways of involving residents with this were discussed (e.g. including their views of life at Alfred House; helping with its design). We advised that both the Service User’s Guide and the contract should also be reviewed to ensure they provide enough clear and personalised information about fees (to meet the amended Regulation 5, 5A, 5B of the Care Homes Regulations 2001, which came into force in September and October 2006). The availability of the most recent inspection report was discussed. Good practice was noted, as after an inspection, the owner/manager said the report was handed out and discussed with residents. A copy was then kept in the office (further good practice was noted, as to promote a more homely environment, the display of notices or signs was deliberately kept to a minimum outside the office). Ways of involving residents’ families were also discussed (e.g. sending letters to inform them of the inspection outcome and inviting them to read the report). Good practice was noted, as from observing staff and residents together, looking at care records and from talking with residents and staff, we found that residents’ specialist mental health needs were clearly being met. Further good practice was noted, as whilst the owner/manager had received referrals for the home’s vacancy, she was waiting to ensure their assessed needs could be properly met before offering them a trial placement. Alfred House Residential Care Home DS0000008420.V337603.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, 8, 9 and 10 Quality in this outcome area is excellent. This judgement has been made using available evidence including a visit to this service. Staff worked in positive and enabling ways with residents, ensuring a thorough understanding and agreement was reached about support needs and personal goals. Consequently, residents were kept safe (with the risk of harm reduced or well managed) and treated as responsible individuals. EVIDENCE: We looked at four care files, all of which had up to date care plans. Good practice was noted, as these contained detailed information about residents’ personal care needs. Further good practice was noted, as they were written in generally plain language and were easy to understand; included residents’ strengths; and clearly reflected the involvement of the resident (including a specific section on the resident’s “own opinion”). Ways of expanding this latter section and also linking residents’ goals more clearly within action plans were discussed. Alfred House Residential Care Home DS0000008420.V337603.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 11 Joint decisions had clearly been reached about the amount of help residents wanted to manage their own money. We suggested expanding what was recorded, with clearer details of the actual practical, day-to-day support that had been agreed and was being provided. The staff team were very knowledgeable about each resident’s mental health needs and any associated risk issues (and how to manage or reduce these risks). We suggested that previous signs and symptoms of relapse could be recorded within care files, to be used as a reference point in case of future ill health. Residents signed and received copies of their care plan. The new key worker system remained in place and seemed to be working well, with both staff and residents having a clear understanding of it. Risk assessments were in place, although some had not been dated or signed on completion. Good practice was noted, as residents were encouraged to take risks as part of an ordinary, independent lifestyle. Where risk issues were high, there was clear, up to date guidance about how to manage them. When high-risk situations did develop, the home acted promptly and appropriately, liaising closely with the community care team and police whilst also encouraging residents to take responsibility and maintain their own personal safety. Where limitations were imposed, this was discussed with the resident and care team and recorded. Regular resident meetings were held and minuted. There was evidence of residents feeling able to bring up issues (i.e. responsibility for housework), and these being taken seriously and acted upon (e.g. cleaning rota being changed). Residents’ views were also sought with regard to the selection and subsequent performance of new staff. As we had previously requested, copies of the most recent CPA review notes were now being obtained and could be easily found in care files. Good practice was noted, as procedures were designed to promote and respect residents’ confidentiality (e.g. with regard to the administration of personal monies and medicines). Staff were able to give clear explanations for their actions with regard to protecting residents’ privacy. Alfred House Residential Care Home DS0000008420.V337603.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): 11, 12, 13, 14, 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. Residents were actively supported to live ordinary and meaningful lives. EVIDENCE: Good practice was noted as staff were expected to support and encourage residents to engage in community based activities (with rotas providing staff with time to accompany residents outside the home – including at evenings and weekends). Whilst some residents preferred to lead more unstructured lives, based around the home, others were more active. Three residents talked about their voluntary work (one person helped out each day at a local church; another ran a weekly tea bar, whilst a third person had a part-time job in a restoration company). One resident went to a day centre twice a week, whilst several residents attended a weekly art group. Another resident, who was busy growing a variety of vegetables and flowers, tended the home’s Alfred House Residential Care Home DS0000008420.V337603.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 13 garden. One resident who had previously accessed a local college to do a computer course, was currently trying to find an appropriate literacy course. With regard to previous group activities (i.e. swimming), interest had waned over time. Consequently, the manager/owner was now planning to introduce such activities for a set period. Residents had recently been supported to visit a local open farm, which provided visitors with the opportunity to get involved with feeding the animals. With regard to holiday plans, following on from the success of last year’s holiday abroad, residents and staff were about to go away again to Spain and were busy with holiday shopping and haircuts. Residents were actively supported to keep in touch with their families and friends (e.g. through weekly home visits and daily telephone calls). Some residents had also received specialist guidance regarding intimate relationships. All residents had received voting cards for the forthcoming local elections. Residents said they were able to do what they wanted each day, were given choices about their daily routines and that staff respected their privacy. Staff confirmed they did not enter bedrooms without permission (unless in an emergency). Residents had keys to their bedrooms, which they were seen to use. Good practice was noted, as staff respected that Alfred House was the residents’ home (e.g. on arrival, staff rang the doorbell and waited to be let in). Residents were actively involved in the home’s domestic routines, sharing the cleaning of communal areas with staff and taking responsibility for their own rooms. With regard to cooking and food shopping, staff took the lead, although residents helped with meal preparation and tidying up afterwards. On Fridays, residents were supported to cook their own lunch. As the inspection happened to take place on this day, a resident very kindly and ably cooked the inspector lunch. The weekly menu was varied and listed attractive, well-balanced dishes. Good practice was noted, as residents were encouraged to try new and unfamiliar foods. Residents spoke positively about meals, describing the food as “good”. Fresh fruit and drinks were available at all times, with residents making both themselves and very kindly, the inspector, drinks throughout the day. Alfred House Residential Care Home DS0000008420.V337603.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 excellent. This judgement has been made using available evidence including a visit to this service. Individual support and medication needs of residents were well met, promoting good health and responsive, person centred care. EVIDENCE: Relationships between staff and residents seemed warm, friendly, caring and respectful. Staff treated residents with courtesy and supported them to make choices. All residents felt staff listened to them and treated them well. One resident said Alfred House was a “very good” place to live, another that they were “very happy here”, whilst another resident said staff were “very nice” and “very kind”. Both male and female staff worked at the home. The staff team were very knowledgeable about and very sensitive to each resident’s changing support needs. Alfred House Residential Care Home DS0000008420.V337603.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 15 Care files contained evidence of residents’ physical and mental health being monitored and regular health care checks being undertaken. When residents became unwell, staff took prompt action in seeking support from appropriate agencies. One resident continued to have a range of aids and equipment to promote their safety and independence. As noted earlier, residents were encouraged to eat a healthy, balanced diet, with access to fresh fruit and vegetables. Staff had a good understanding of medication procedures. Medicines were being stored safely, with clear records kept regarding their receipt and any returned to the pharmacist. Administration records were well kept and contained residents’ photographs. We advised any handwritten entries made on the MARs sheets should be double signed. Good practice was noted, as eye drops were being dated on first opening. The administration of ‘homely remedies’ was well monitored, with clear administration records. For staff reference and guidance, we advised a record be kept of acceptable ‘homely’ medicines (as agreed with the home’s pharmacist and GPs). As a reference tool, we also advised a ‘medication history’ be kept for each resident. Although one resident was responsible for reordering their medicines at the pharmacist, no resident was currently looking after their own medicines (although residents had been supported to do so previously). Storage arrangements for residents who self medicate were discussed. As agreed with the pharmacist inspector, we advised that some residents may find it easier to keep medicines on their person (e.g. in a trouser pocket) rather than in a locked box in their bedroom. Alfred House Residential Care Home DS0000008420.V337603.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. Arrangements for protecting residents from abuse or harm and for taking any concerns seriously were in place. EVIDENCE: There was an open culture within the home, where residents felt able to express their views and concerns. Residents were clear who to talk to if they were unhappy or had any concerns. We saw clear evidence of residents feeling able to raise important and sensitive issues with staff, who listened and responded in an appropriate manner. Staff demonstrated a good understanding of how to handle complaints and report suspected abuse. To build on this and the ongoing training received inhouse (and through completing NVQ awards), we had previously recommended that staff also undertake external training. The owner/manager confirmed that places on a safeguarding adults course had now been secured through Bury Social Services training partnership, which all of the staff team were about to undertake (starting 22 May 2007). A concern was raised from a family member through our comment cards. It was agreed this would be passed to the owner/manager to follow up. Alfred House Residential Care Home DS0000008420.V337603.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 17 Cash balances were held on most residents’ behalf, with clear transaction records kept. Residents generally had three separate records, relating to a day-to-day ‘float’, a ‘reserve’ and ‘savings’. ‘Float’ and ‘reserve’ balances were kept in the home, with all staff having access to the former and the owner/manager and her partner to the latter. ‘Savings’ were in individual bank accounts. Three ‘float’ and ‘reserve’ balances were checked at random and found to be correct. The owner/manager was aware of the need to keep the system under review regarding how it will continue to best meet the needs of individual residents (concerning promoting independence). Although no valuables were kept, passports were looked after. We advised that a separate record be kept of their reference numbers. Also, the home’s insurance company should be contacted to confirm the maximum amount of money covered. Alfred House Residential Care Home DS0000008420.V337603.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, 27, 28 and 30 Quality in this outcome area is excellent. This judgement has been made using available evidence including a visit to this service. Alfred House provided residents with an attractive, comfortable, safe and homely place to live. EVIDENCE: Alfred House was comfortable, homely, bright and welcoming. There was a high standard of décor and furnishings, which were domestic in style. Residents had the use of two lounges (smoking and no smoking), a dining room, kitchen and a laundry room (which was in the cellar). There was also a pleasant enclosed back yard garden, with a bbq and planted tubs. There was also a ground floor staff office. Two residents helped show the inspector their bedrooms. These were extensively personalised and a suitable range of furniture and fittings. Alfred House Residential Care Home DS0000008420.V337603.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 19 There was an ongoing programme of renewal and maintenance, with a range of work carried out since the last inspection – the smoking lounge had been redecorated and the men’s bathroom looked wonderful after its refurbishment and upgrade. Ways of further improving the smoking room to the high standard of the other communal rooms were discussed. We found the home smelt fresh and was very clean and tidy. Residents confirmed this was usual. Alfred House Residential Care Home DS0000008420.V337603.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): 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 and 36 Quality in this outcome area is excellent. This judgement has been made using available evidence including a visit to this service. Residents benefited from a rigorously recruited, well supported, enthusiastic and knowledgeable staff team. The provision of mental health training to a new starter will continue to ensure this. EVIDENCE: Good practice was noted, as there was a small, stable staff team with very little turnover. We looked at the files of the two new staff who had started since the last inspection. Application forms, references and proof of identity were in place. Although the POVAFirst check facility was used (with email confirmation kept), staff did not start work until the full CRB disclosure had been received. Good practice was noted, as where issues of concern had arisen in the recruitment process, further checks had been made. New staff were clear about their role and understand the aims and values of the home. They confirmed they had received a good induction (which was recorded within an induction manual). We advised the owner/manager to review this manual against the six new Alfred House Residential Care Home DS0000008420.V337603.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 21 ‘Common Induction Standards’ introduced by Skills for Care (in October 2006). We showed a copy of the booklet and the certificate received on its successful completion (with regard to future staff who may bring this with them). Staff had undertaken fire training. Good practice was noted, as regular health and safety refreshers took place during staff meetings. We advised that individual staff training records contained clear details of any such training (regarding date received and topic covered). With regard to mental health training, the need for one of the new starters to receive such training was discussed. We advised this could be provided in house (e.g. from the owner/manager who was a qualified mental health nurse) (with records kept regarding topics covered and dates provided). We also advised the new starter’s NVQ level 3 in elderly care should be built on, with additional units being taken to provide an additional NVQ level 3 qualification more suited for Alfred House (e.g. promoting independence). Further to NVQ qualifications, good practice was noted, as whilst all staff had NVQ level 3, four staff had now obtained the Registered Managers Award (NVQ level 4). Another member of staff had just completed her social work degree course. Staffing levels were good. A minimum of two staff were regularly on duty each weekday, plus Saturdays. In addition to annual appraisals, staff said they received regular, useful, individual supervision (with notes taken). Further good practice was noted, as formal, monthly team meetings were held. Staff explained they were encouraged to contribute agenda items for discussion (e.g. introducing paid handover time into staff shift patterns). . Alfred House Residential Care Home DS0000008420.V337603.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, 38, 39, 42 and 43 Quality in this outcome area is good. This judgement has been made using available evidence including a visit to this service. Residents and staff benefited from a well managed home. EVIDENCE: The owner/manager (Mrs Ann Partridge) was a qualified mental health nurse with considerable professional experience of working with people with mental health needs in both hospital and the community settings. Mrs Partridge had owned and run Alfred House for the past 12 years. In addition to her nursing qualification, Mrs Partridge had the Registered Managers Award (NVQ level 4), plus an NVQ level 4 in management and British Sign Language level one. Mrs Partridge was currently undertaking the NVQ assessors (A1) course. As Mrs Partridge regularly worked in the home six days a week, she was extremely Alfred House Residential Care Home DS0000008420.V337603.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 23 knowledgeable about the residents and the rest of the staff team. Residents and staff thought of her very highly. One resident said Mrs Partridge was “very kind”; relatives said they were “very pleased” and “very satisfied”; and staff felt Mrs Partridge was “very hands on and very approachable”. The warm, open and inclusive atmosphere within the home impressed us. Staff were motivated and enthusiastic. They also felt listened to and were encouraged to get involved - “I love it here”; “I don’t want to leave”. We saw residents clearly feeling able to talk to the owner/manager and other staff about issues that concerned them. In addition to feedback sought from residents at house meetings, their views on new staff were sought and they also took part in the home’s annual quality assurance survey. This survey also included residents’ families and external professionals (e.g. GPs, social workers, community nurses). Working practices in the home were safe and based upon good practice, with clear thought given to supporting and respecting residents in a proactive, enabling manner. The home confirmed that up to date safety checks had been carried out on fire safety, gas and electrical equipment. Good practice was noted, as in addition to external annual fire safety training, staff received regular practical refreshers (e.g. going through the fire alarm panel during team meetings). A valid insurance certificate was on display. Alfred House Residential Care Home DS0000008420.V337603.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 4 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 4 25 X 26 X 27 3 28 3 29 X 30 4 STAFFING Standard No Score 31 3 32 4 33 4 34 3 35 3 36 4 CONDUCT AND MANAGEMENT OF THE HOME Standard No 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 Score 4 4 4 4 4 LIFESTYLES Standard No Score 11 3 12 3 13 4 14 3 15 4 16 4 17 3 PERSONAL AND HEALTHCARE SUPPORT Standard No 18 19 20 21 Score 4 4 3 X 4 4 3 X X 3 3 Alfred House Residential Care Home DS0000008420.V337603.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 25 Are there any outstanding requirements from the last inspection? No 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 YA35 Good Practice Recommendations To ensure the new starter has a comprehensive understanding of mental health issues and residents’ specialist care needs, mental health training should be provided. Alfred House Residential Care Home DS0000008420.V337603.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 26 Commission for Social Care Inspection Manchester Local office 11th Floor West Point 501 Chester Road Manchester 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 Alfred House Residential Care Home DS0000008420.V337603.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!