Inspection on 02/04/07 for Andrin House

This inspection was carried out on 2nd April 2007.

CSCI has not published a star rating for this report, though using similar criteria we estimate that the report is Good. The way we rate inspection reports is consistent for all houses, though please be aware that this may be different from an official CSCI judgement.

The inspector 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

Andrin House 22/04/09

Andrin House 01/04/08

Andrin House 19/04/06

Andrin House 05/09/05

Andrin House 18/04/05

Andrin House 27/09/04

Andrin House 05/04/04

Similar services:

Byars Care Home

St Marys Nursing Home

Bramble Lodge

Parkmanor Residential Home

Thornham Grove

Hunter`s Lodge

London Road Neurological and Specialist Care Unit

Carlton Care Home

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

CARE HOMES FOR OLDER PEOPLE Andrin House 43 Belper Road Derby DE1 3EP Lead Inspector Janet Morrow Unannounced Inspection 2nd April 2007 10:30 X10015.doc Version 1.40 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 Andrin House DS0000002150.V333522.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 Older People. 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. Andrin House DS0000002150.V333522.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 3 SERVICE INFORMATION Name of service Andrin House Address 43 Belper Road Derby DE1 3EP 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) 01332 346812 F/P 01332 346812 enquiries@andrinhouse.fsnet.co.uk Rosecare Homes Limited Patricia Peart-Stubbs Care Home 37 Category(ies) of Old age, not falling within any other category registration, with number (37) of places Andrin House DS0000002150.V333522.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 4 SERVICE INFORMATION Conditions of registration: 1. 2. 1 place for named service user (MH) in category PD under 65 years of age. 1 place for named service user (DG) under 65 years of age. Date of last inspection 4th September 2006 Brief Description of the Service: Andrin House is a 37 bedded home with nursing for older people situated in a residential area close to the city centre of Derby. The property was originally a private dwelling, which has been converted into a care home. Residents’ bedrooms are located on the ground floor and first floor and are accessed by passenger shaft lift and staircase. Three bedrooms have en suite facilities. Personalised items are in the bedrooms. There are four communal rooms. Support services are in place with a choice of GPs, chiropodist, dentist and optician. Nursing services are provided as part of the care services of the home. Community psychiatric nurses, occupational therapists, physiotherapists and dieticians are accessed as required. Staff training takes place. Some entertainment is provided. Information provided by the service in April 2007 stated that the fees ranged from £300 – £675 per week. Details of previous inspection reports can be found on the Commission for Social Care Inspection’s website: www.csci.org.uk Andrin House DS0000002150.V333522.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 5 SUMMARY This is an overview of what the inspector found during the inspection. This inspection visit took place over two days for a total of ten hours. Care records, staff records and a random sample of policies and procedures were examined. The manager and owner were interviewed. Four members of care and nursing staff were spoken with. Eight of twenty residents currently accommodated and four sets of relatives were spoken with. A partial tour of the building was undertaken. Two visiting professionals were contacted by telephone following the inspection visit. Six residents’ surveys were returned to the Commission for Social Care Inspection prior to the visit. Three short inspection visits had taken place to assess compliance with specific issues since the last key inspection visit in April 2006 and the owner and manager had been invited to the office of the Commission for Social Care Inspection in February 2007 to discuss issues of care planning. Written information supplied by the home prior to the visit informed the inspection process. What the service does well: Residents and their relatives interviewed praised the care staff and described them as ‘kind and caring’. The residents’ surveys returned prior to the visit indicated that staff listened and acted on what residents and relatives said and one survey commented that staff were ‘excellent in this respect’. There were a core group of staff that had worked at the home for several years that ensured continuity of care. The laundry service was praised and residents and their relatives stated that clothes were kept in a good condition. The meals provided were also praised and menus showed that there was variety and choice. Residents were able to have their own routines and visitors were made to feel welcome at any time. Complaints were handled well and the records showed clearly what action had been taken to resolve them. The manager and staff were fully conversant with adult protection procedures. Andrin House DS0000002150.V333522.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 6 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. Andrin House DS0000002150.V333522.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 7 DETAILS OF INSPECTOR FINDINGS CONTENTS Choice of Home (Standards 1–6) Health and Personal Care (Standards 7-11) Daily Life and Social Activities (Standards 12-15) Complaints and Protection (Standards 16-18) Environment (Standards 19-26) Staffing (Standards 27-30) Management and Administration (Standards 31-38) Scoring of Outcomes Statutory Requirements Identified During the Inspection Andrin House DS0000002150.V333522.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 8 Choice of Home The intended outcomes for Standards 1 – 6 are: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Prospective service users have the information they need to make an informed choice about where to live. Each service user has a written contract/ statement of terms and conditions with the home. No service user moves into the home without having had his/her needs assessed and been assured that these will be met. Service users and their representatives know that the home they enter will meet their needs. Prospective service users and their relatives and friends have an opportunity to visit and assess the quality, facilities and suitability of the home. Service users assessed and referred solely for intermediate care are helped to maximise their independence and return home. The Commission considers Standards 3 and 6 the key standards to be inspected. JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for the following standard(s): 2, 3 and 4. Standard 6 was not applicable, as the home did not provide intermediate care. Quality in this outcome area is good. This judgement has been made using available evidence including a visit to this service. There was sufficient information available to ensure that the home was able to meet residents’ needs. EVIDENCE: Three residents’ care files were examined. All had an assessment in place including one completed by the home and also from the assessment and care management process, where applicable. Falls were addressed by use of a specific falls risk assessment tool and moving and handling assessments were in place on each file. Andrin House DS0000002150.V333522.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 9 Those relatives spoken with stated that their relatives’ needs were met and that the care provided was good. This was also confirmed on the six residents’ surveys returned. Terms and conditions of residence (contract) were examined and showed that they specified the breakdown of costs into accommodation, personal care and nursing care as required by the Care Homes Regulations 2001. They were in place on all three residents’ files examined. Andrin House DS0000002150.V333522.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 10 Health and Personal Care The intended outcomes for Standards 7 – 11 are: 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. The service user’s health, personal and social care needs are set out in an individual plan of care. Service users’ health care needs are fully met. Service users, where appropriate, are responsible for their own medication, and are protected by the home’s policies and procedures for dealing with medicines. Service users feel they are treated with respect and their right to privacy is upheld. Service users are assured that at the time of their death, staff will treat them and their family with care, sensitivity and respect. The Commission considers Standards 7, 8, 9 and 10 the key standards to be inspected. JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for the following standard(s): 7, 8, 9 and 10 Quality in this outcome area is good. This judgement has been made using available evidence including a visit to this service. Care planning and medication procedures were satisfactory, which ensured that residents’ health and personal care needs were met. EVIDENCE: Three residents’ care files were examined. Care plans were in place in all those examined. These had improved to ensure that all needs were addressed, including social and religious needs and family history. Risk assessments were in place for falls, pressure sores, moving and handling and nutrition. Recording of weight was occurring on a monthly basis and the risk assessments for nutrition and pressure sores were also being undertaken monthly. Action was being taken to address any risks identified; for example, one file had recorded a weight loss and the care plan showed that monitoring of food intake was occurring; another showed that falls had occurred and there was a care plan in place to minimise this risk. Recording of General Practitioner visits and Andrin House DS0000002150.V333522.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 11 chiropody visits took place and residents and relatives spoken with also confirmed that these occurred. Two of the three files examined had evidence of consultation with residents, such as a signature, about their care. There was positive feedback from both relatives and residents about the care and the carers. One resident stated that they were ‘quite satisfied’; another said they were ‘happy with the care’ and a relative stated that the care had been ‘very good’ and that staff were ‘kind and caring’. Two relatives stated that they thought staff were ‘patient’ and were quick to diffuse any potential upset or distress. The six residents’ surveys returned also confirmed that care needs were met; four stated that they ‘always’ received the care and support needed and two stated that they ‘usually’ received it. A relative commented in one survey that they were ‘very pleased with the care and support received from all staff’. Observation of care practice showed that staff spoke respectfully to residents and that privacy and dignity was maintained. The medication administration record (MAR) charts for four residents were examined and on the whole were in order. However, one chart was hand written and had not been signed and dated by two people. The controlled drugs record was examined and the record corresponded with the drugs held. Medicines were stored securely and medicines with short life spans such as eye drops were labelled with date of opening. The Royal Pharmaceutical Society Guidelines were available for information and the home also had its own policy on dealing with medication. Andrin House DS0000002150.V333522.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 12 Daily Life and Social Activities The intended outcomes for Standards 12 - 15 are: 12. 13. 14. 15. Service users find the lifestyle experienced in the home matches their expectations and preferences, and satisfies their social, cultural, religious and recreational interests and needs. Service users maintain contact with family/ friends/ representatives and the local community as they wish. Service users are helped to exercise choice and control over their lives. Service users receive a wholesome appealing balanced diet in pleasing surroundings at times convenient to them. The Commission considers all of the above key standards to be inspected. JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for the following standard(s): 12, 13 14 and 15 Quality in this outcome area is good. This judgement has been made using available evidence including a visit to this service. Visiting, meals and activities were well managed, which enhanced residents’ daily lives. EVIDENCE: Activities took place each day that included movement to music, quizzes, games and bingo. In addition, musical entertainment was also provided and staff commented that residents were taken out during summer weather to local facilities such as the shops and parks. Observation of the activity taking place during the inspection visit (a musical quiz) showed that residents were enjoying the interaction and conversation with each other and staff. Staff were observed to be talking to residents on a one to one basis and also painting some residents’ nails. The interaction observed was positive and residents were enjoying the individual attention. However, those residents with some communication difficulties were not participating and spent the majority of the Andrin House DS0000002150.V333522.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 13 time either asleep or watching television and staff spoken with stated that it was difficult to engage some residents in any meaningful occupation. Two relatives spoken with stated that more ‘mental stimulation’ was needed for residents who had difficulty participating in activities. Choices were offered to the majority of residents and it was observed that individual residents had their own routines, such as spending time in their own rooms, choosing whether or not to join an activity and going out with relatives or friends. Bedrooms were personalised with residents’ individual possessions. All relatives interviewed stated that they were made to feel welcome at the home and could visit at any time. One survey returned stated that ‘a welcome and relaxed atmosphere prevails’. Visitors were observed to be calling at different times throughout the day. The serving of the midday meal was observed and those residents spoken with said they enjoyed the food and that they were offered an alternative if they did not like what was on offer. Those residents’ requiring help with eating were assisted by staff in a sensitive manner. One relative spoken with also commented that assistance was given in a dignified manner. The written information supplied by the home showed that menus offered nutritious meals and that a choice was available. The stocks of food in the kitchen were seen and were plentiful. There was information available in the kitchen about specialist needs for specific residents. Andrin House DS0000002150.V333522.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 14 Complaints and Protection The intended outcomes for Standards 16 - 18 are: 16. 17. 18. Service users and their relatives and friends are confident that their complaints will be listened to, taken seriously and acted upon. Service users’ legal rights are protected. Service users are protected from abuse. The Commission considers Standards 16 and 18 the key standards to be. JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for the following standard(s): 16 and 18 Quality in this outcome area is good. This judgement has been made using available evidence including a visit to this service. The objective handling of complaints, clear adult protection procedures and staff awareness ensured that residents were protected from abuse. EVIDENCE: The written information supplied by the home prior to the inspection visit stated that there had been six complaints received at the home over the previous year. The complaints record was examined and showed that the manager investigated complaints and recorded their outcomes. Those relatives and residents interviewed said that they would contact the manager if they had any concerns and were confident of a courteous response. There had been no complaints received at the office of the Commission for Social Care Inspection during the previous twelve months. Adult protection procedures were in place and the home had a copy of Derby and Derbyshire Local Authority Social Service procedures. In discussion, the manager was able to demonstrate that she was fully aware of what to do in the event of an allegation. The written information supplied by the home stated that adult protection training had occurred in June 2006 although there were no staff training certificates available to verify this. One Andrin House DS0000002150.V333522.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 15 member of staff spoken with confirmed that they had undertaken the training. Documentation was seen showing that further training was booked for April and May 2007. Staff spoken with were aware of their responsibilities in relation to safeguarding adults. Andrin House DS0000002150.V333522.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 16 Environment The intended outcomes for Standards 19 – 26 are: 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. Service users live in a safe, well-maintained environment. Service users have access to safe and comfortable indoor and outdoor communal facilities. Service users have sufficient and suitable lavatories and washing facilities. Service users have the specialist equipment they require to maximise their independence. Service users’ own rooms suit their needs. Service users live in safe, comfortable bedrooms with their own possessions around them. Service users live in safe, comfortable surroundings. The home is clean, pleasant and hygienic. The Commission considers Standards 19 and 26 the key standards to be inspected. JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for the following standard(s): 19, 24 and 26 Quality in this outcome area is adequate. This judgement has been made using available evidence including a visit to this service. The environment was generally safe but further refurbishment would enhance the ongoing comfort of residents. EVIDENCE: The home was generally well maintained but there continued to be areas that could be improved. One relative interviewed commented on the entrance looking shabby and one survey stated that it could do with ’smartening up i.e. doors painted, plants in tubs etc.’ The outside garden area was in need of weeding and this was also referred to in one survey received. Andrin House DS0000002150.V333522.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 17 A partial tour of the building showed that the carpet in the small lounge was soiled in one area and although some new armchairs had been provided in the large lounge, there continued to be some in use that needed refurbishing. Dust was noted on window ledges in the large lounge and two of the small portable tables in the large lounge were either damaged or dirty. One relative interviewed commented that there had been an accumulation of dust behind the bed in a resident’s bedroom. A recent environmental health report (February 2007) noted dirty areas in the kitchen. Four of the six residents’ surveys, however, commented that the home was ‘always’ fresh and clean. The written information provided by the home stated that some bedrooms had been re-decorated and new flooring supplied. The smoking room had been improved by re-decoration and refurbishing of chairs. There had been no changes to room sizes since the last key inspection in April 2006. The laundry was tidy and washing machines had a sluice wash facility. Infection control procedures were in place and a member of the nursing staff had responsibility for keeping up to date with any new information and recommendations from Department of Health. Staff spoken with stated that there were sufficient gloves and aprons available to help maintain hygienic practice. The written information supplied by the home stated that infection control training had taken place in May 2006 but there was no further verification of this. Andrin House DS0000002150.V333522.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 18 Staffing The intended outcomes for Standards 27 – 30 are: 27. 28. 29. 30. Service users’ needs are met by the numbers and skill mix of staff. Service users are in safe hands at all times. Service users are supported and protected by the home’s recruitment policy and practices. Staff are trained and competent to do their jobs. The Commission consider all the above are key standards to be inspected. JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for the following standard(s): 27, 28, 29 and 30 Quality in this outcome area is good. This judgement has been made using available evidence including a visit to this service. There were sufficient qualified and experienced staff deployed to meet residents’ needs. Recruitment procedures were thorough and safeguarded residents. EVIDENCE: The written information supplied by the home included staff rotas for the weeks 5th March 2007 – 1st April 2007. This showed that there were two nurses and four care staff on duty in the mornings and one nurse and three or four care staff in the afternoons. This was consistent with the numbers on duty during the inspection visit and was sufficient for the numbers of residents currently accommodated. Staff spoken with stated that access to training was good and the written information stated that mandatory health and safety training occurred. However, there were only two courses (first aid and food hygiene) that had certificates available in staff files. Other courses that had occurred in the previous twelve months listed on the written information were adult protection, care planning, catheter care and good nutrition. Staff spoken with confirmed that National Vocational Qualification (NVQ) training took place and the Andrin House DS0000002150.V333522.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 19 information supplied by the home stated that ten of seventeen care staff had achieved a National Vocational Qualification to level 2. This meant that the home had achieved the target of having 50 of care staff qualified to Level 2. Four staff files were examined and showed that recruitment procedures were generally thorough. All files had evidence of identity and qualifications were applicable, and a completed application form. Three files had two written references but the fourth had only one; however this related to a longstanding member of staff. A Criminal Record Bureau (CRB) check was in place on all four files; however, one, although very recent, was accepted from a previous employer. The CRB guidance is clear in stating that all new employees must have a fresh CRB check undertaken when commencing employment, irrespective of whether they already have one from a previous post. This was re-iterated to the provider who agreed to commence the process of obtaining a check immediately for the identified member of staff. Andrin House DS0000002150.V333522.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 20 Management and Administration The intended outcomes for Standards 31 – 38 are: 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. Service users live in a home which is run and managed by a person who is fit to be in charge, of good character and able to discharge his or her responsibilities fully. Service users benefit from the ethos, leadership and management approach of the home. The home is run in the best interests of service users. Service users are safeguarded by the accounting and financial procedures of the home. Service users’ financial interests are safeguarded. Staff are appropriately supervised. 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 and staff are promoted and protected. The Commission considers Standards 31, 33, 35 and 38 the key standards to be inspected. JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for the following standard(s): 31, 33, 35, and 38 Quality in this outcome area is adequate. This judgement has been made using available evidence including a visit to this service. Quality assurance processes were not fully implemented and there were gaps in health and safety information and training, which did not ensure that the home was run in residents’ best interests. EVIDENCE: The management of the home was in a period of transition as the registered manager was about to leave. Suitable arrangements for cover were in place until a permanent replacement could be found. Andrin House DS0000002150.V333522.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 21 A quality assurance plan was available that stated surveys would be undertaken and residents and relatives meetings would be held as method of assessing the quality of the service provided. However, there had been no surveys or meetings since May 2006 and it was unclear what action was being taken to assure quality other than monthly visits from the provider. Records of residents’ money were available in computerised format and monies were held in a specific bank account for residents. Receipts were available for purchases and signatures were available on the handwritten records when money was distributed. Three residents records were examined and all had receipts available that corresponded with the record of purchases. Health and safety was generally addressed although there were gaps in records of staff training. For example, there were no certificates available to verify infection control training, moving and handling or fire safety, although the written information supplied by the home stated that this had occurred in the last twelve months. Staff spoken with were unclear about when training had occurred; one member had not done any recent training and another stated that their food hygiene was out of date. Examination of fire extinguishers showed that these had been checked in January 2007. A recent visit from the Fire Officer had issued requirements to improve fire safety training and risk assessments. The provider had obtained the necessary guidance and stated that the requirements made would be dealt with. The written information supplied by the home indicated that maintenance checks were undertaken regularly; for example, it stated that gas safety had been checked in December 2006, water safety in February 2007 and hoists and emergency call system in January 2007. The accident report book was examined and with the exception of one entry, these corresponded with entries in residents’ files. The record of fridge and freezer temperatures for March 2007 showed that these were not being recorded on a daily basis. The written information supplied by the home stated that an inspection by the Environmental Health Department had been undertaken in February 2007. One issue regarding the development of a food management safety system had not been implemented and was outstanding from 2006. The report also noted that several areas in the kitchen were dirty such as shelving in storage areas and the fly screen. Andrin House DS0000002150.V333522.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 22 SCORING OF OUTCOMES This page summarises the assessment of the extent to which the National Minimum Standards for Care Homes for Older People 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 2 3 4 5 6 ENVIRONMENT Standard No Score 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 X 3 3 3 X N/A HEALTH AND PERSONAL CARE Standard No Score 7 3 8 3 9 3 10 3 11 X DAILY LIFE AND SOCIAL ACTIVITIES Standard No Score 12 3 13 3 14 3 15 3 COMPLAINTS AND PROTECTION Standard No Score 16 3 17 X 18 3 2 X X X X 3 X 2 STAFFING Standard No Score 27 3 28 3 29 2 30 3 MANAGEMENT AND ADMINISTRATION Standard No 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 Score 3 X 2 X 3 X X 2 Andrin House DS0000002150.V333522.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 23 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. 1. Standard OP29 Regulation 19 (1) (b) Schedule 2 Requirement All new staff must have a Criminal Record Bureau (CRB) check and Protection of Vulnerable Adults (POVA) check undertaken by the home prior to commencing employment. Quality assurance processes must be fully implemented to ensure that the home is run in residents’ best interests and takes account of their views. All staff must have up to date training in the mandatory health and safety areas; i.e. fire safety, moving and handling, infection control, first aid and food hygiene. Timescale for action 18/04/07 2. OP33 24 (1) 01/07/07 3. OP38 13 (4) (c) & 18 (1) (c) (i) 01/06/07 RECOMMENDATIONS These recommendations relate to National Minimum Standards and are seen as good practice for the Registered Provider/s to consider carrying out. No. Refer to Standard Good Practice Recommendations Andrin House DS0000002150.V333522.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 24 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. OP9 OP12 OP19 OP19 OP19 OP26 OP30 OP36 9. 10. OP38 OP38 Two people should sign hand written medication administration record (MAR) charts. A wider range of activities should be arranged to ensure that those residents who find it difficult to participate are not excluded. The entrance and garden of the home should be tidied and refurbishment undertaken where appropriate. All old armchairs and small tables in the large lounge should be replaced or refurbished. The damage to the carpet in the small lounge should be repaired. Greater attention should be paid to cleaning in more concealed areas such as behind beds, windowsills etc. A training matrix to establish which staff need updated training should be maintained. Staff supervision should take place every two months and include career development needs, and philosophy of care in the home. This is a previous recommendation and was not assessed on this occasion. Verification of staff mandatory health and safety training should always be available. Records of fridge and freezer temperatures should be maintained. Andrin House DS0000002150.V333522.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 25 Commission for Social Care Inspection Derbyshire Area Office Cardinal Square Nottingham Road Derby DE1 3QT 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 Andrin House DS0000002150.V333522.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!