Inspection on 21/04/08 for Astoria Park

This inspection was carried out on 21st April 2008.

CSCI found this care home to be providing an Good service.

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

Astoria Park 25/08/09

Astoria Park 11/06/09

Astoria Park 03/03/09

Astoria Park 27/11/07

Similar services:

Claremont House

Oak Ridge

Sun Court Nursing Home

Ashville House

Bilney Hall

Hill Barn

Mabbs Hall Nursing Home

Henrietta House

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

CARE HOMES FOR OLDER PEOPLE Astoria Park 15 Park Crescent Peterborough PE1 4DX Lead Inspector Elaine Boismier Unannounced Inspection 21st April 2008 10:00 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 Astoria Park DS0000069673.V362497.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. Astoria Park DS0000069673.V362497.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 3 SERVICE INFORMATION Name of service Astoria Park Address 15 Park Crescent Peterborough PE1 4DX 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) 01733 555110 01733 898497 Southern Cross Healthcare (Focus) Limited Ms Belindah Pasipamire Care Home 59 Category(ies) of Dementia (22), Old age, not falling within any registration, with number other category (59) of places Astoria Park DS0000069673.V362497.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 4 SERVICE INFORMATION Conditions of registration: 1. The registered person may provide the following category of service only: Care home with nursing To service users of the following gender: Either Whose primary care needs on admission to the home are within the following categories: Old age, not falling within any other category - Code OP, maximum number of places: 59 2. Dementia - Code DE, maximum number of places: 22 The maximum number of service users who can be accommodated is: 59 27th November 2007 Date of last inspection Brief Description of the Service: Astoria Park is a registered care home to provide care, mainly for people over 65 years of age, some with nursing and mental health needs. The home is in a converted building with accommodation arranged on three floors. There are fifty-three single bedrooms and three double bedrooms. Fiftyfive bedrooms have en suite facilities and one bedroom has the sole use of facilities situated a short distance away. Astoria Park is situated in a suburb of the city of Peterborough approximately 10 minutes walking distance from the city centre and overlooking a large public park. Current fees range from £387.03 to £600.75. Additional costs include those for hairdressing and chiropody. Further information about fees can be obtained from the home. A copy of the inspection report is available at the home or via the CSCI website at www.csci.org.uk Astoria Park DS0000069673.V362497.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 5 SUMMARY This is an overview of what the inspector found during the inspection. The quality rating for this service is 2 star. This means the people who use this service experience good quality outcomes. This summary includes information that we have received since our last inspection in November 2007 and up to this inspection of the 21st April 2008. We received surveys from staff and residents, just after our inspection in November and we have included some of the information, from these, in this inspection report. Before this inspection, of April 2008, we sent out more surveys to residents, staff and relatives/visitors. We have received two surveys from staff, one survey from a resident and we have received four surveys from relatives/visitors. We received a completed Annual Quality Assurance Assessment (AQAA) from the home and this has been referred to in this report. We, The Commission for Social Care Inspection, carried out this key unannounced inspection, by two Inspectors, between 9:55 and 14:35 and it took 4 hours and twenty minutes to complete. We spoke with residents, staff, including the Manager, looked at documentation, watched staff working and looked around the premises. For the purpose of this report people who live at Astoria Park are referred to as “people, “person” or “resident/s”. What the service does well: Comments in surveys said that the home does well and “Keeps my mother clean, well fed & safe and the staff are always kind to her.” Another person wrote, “The staff work as a team and try to support each other. They interact well with each other and the service users, to provide a homely, caring atmosphere.” There continues to be a number of staff who have remained working at the home, whilst the home has had to encounter difficulties during the previous Astoria Park DS0000069673.V362497.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 6 two years. (Please refer to previous inspection reports for further information about these times.) 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. Astoria Park DS0000069673.V362497.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 7 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. Astoria Park DS0000069673.V362497.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 8 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 Astoria Park DS0000069673.V362497.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 9 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): 1 & 3 Quality in this outcome area is good. People have a good standard of information about the home to assist them in their decision where to live. This judgement has been made using available evidence including a visit to this service. EVIDENCE: Copies of the Statement of Purpose and Service User’s Guide were available throughout the home. In the entrance porch there is information about the home, including a copy of the November 2007 inspection report. Of the 5 service users’ surveys that we received after the key inspection of 27th November 2007 all of these said that the person had received enough information about the home before they moved in. The AQAA informed us that” Pre-admission assessments are carried out for all prospective residents to determine if we can meet their needs prior to admission”. Examination of two Astoria Park DS0000069673.V362497.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 10 care records for two people recently admitted to the home indicated that they had their needs fully assessed before they moved in to the home. Astoria Park DS0000069673.V362497.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 11 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 & 10 Quality in this outcome area is good. People are safer due to improved care practices and record keeping. This judgement has been made using available evidence including a visit to this service. EVIDENCE: The AQAA told us that within the last 12 months “We have improved on documentation by doing indvidulised (sic) care plans for all indentified care needs…There is a gradual improvement process between residents and staff as some residents are involved in their care planning process.” Examination of a number of people’s care records indicated that the standard of these continue to improve; the monthly evaluations of the care provided a summary account of how the person had been and if the care provided was appropriate. The care records also indicated that there had been some consultation with the people’s relatives, about the plan of care. Astoria Park DS0000069673.V362497.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 12 Speaking with staff and comparing the information they provided with the details of the care records, indicated that the care plans reflected the people’s assessed needs and the care that they were receiving. A copy of the regulation 26 report, for February 2008, indicated that, following a review of some of the care plans, there needed to be an improvement in drawing up care plans for short term needs of the residents. According to the AQAA no person, admitted to the home within the last 12 months, has acquired a pressure sore and the Manager confirmed this was the case. One person we spoke with told us that they had a tendency to become sore (but the skin had not become broken) and action had been taken to ensure that this person’s skin did not break down and, according to the person, the soreness subsequently had disappeared. All of the 5 service users’ surveys that we received just after the inspection of 27th November 2007 told us that the people were satisfied with the medical and personal support and that they received the personal care they needed. Following our inspection in November 2007 we have received 2 concerns/allegations about the standard of nursing care provided at Astoria Park. Southern Cross, the registered owner, investigated these concerns/allegations and although the outcome of the investigation was not proven there was evidence provided by an external agency that there was some neglect of a person’s nursing needs. A relative’s survey told us that, “There have been instances where basic day to day hygiene care for my mother has been unacceptable. For example dirty/uncut nails and a lack of teeth cleaning.” We noted that staff were caring for people’s nails and we saw no person with dirty fingernails or unclean mouths. Nevertheless we noted that some of the people’s hair could have been cleaner and better presented. We expect the home to manage this issue. Care records indicated people have access to a range of healthcare professionals including GPs, chiropodists and district nurses. People’s weights were recorded each month and we saw people’s weights were stable. For one person assessed to have their blood sugar monitored each month and records of these, indicated that the person’s blood sugar was within an acceptable range. The records also indicated when the person had refused to have their blood sugars monitored. However this standard of record keeping was not consistent; after January 2008 there was no record of the person’s blood sugar and no written explanation why this monitoring practice had been omitted. We expect the home to manage this issue rather than we make a requirement on this occasion. A specialist pharmacist inspector examined the practices and procedures for the safe handling and recording of medication. Residents are protected by Astoria Park DS0000069673.V362497.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 13 having their medication stored securely and safely. The medication room is temperature controlled to maintain the quality of medicines and record of the temperatures were seen. Supplies of medicines were sufficient for residents’ needs but there were some medicines prescribed for people that had the original label removed and so it was not possible to see who these were for. We expect the home to manage this without the need to make a requirement at this stage. Clear records are kept of when medicines come into and leave the home. Records are also kept of when medicines are given to residents. These were of a good standard, but there is still a need to record the actual number of doses given when this is variable e.g. “one or two tablets”. This will prevent residents receiving too much or too little medication. However, the quality of the records has much improved over previous inspections and the requirement that records of medicines are accurate and complete to show that people receive the medicines prescribed for them we considered has been met. We watched some medicines being given to residents and this was done in a way which respected their dignity and personal choice. The requirement made for people to be given medicines as prescribed by their GP has been met. People told us that the care staff were generally good. We observed staff knocking on people’s doors before they went in and people’s unopened mail was personally delivered to them. Astoria Park DS0000069673.V362497.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 14 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 & 15 Quality in this outcome area is good. People are provided with a range of opportunities to live an improved quality of life that could be even better. This judgement has been made using available evidence including a visit to this service. EVIDENCE: A requirement was made and was carried forward with a new timescale for the 2nd February 2008. This requirement was about activities provided in the home. We saw people taking part in a physical and co-ordination exercises and staff taking a person to sit out in the garden. The staff, people and the care records indicated that escorted trips to the local park are frequently taken. All of the 5 service users’ surveys that we received following the inspection in November 2007 told us that the people were generally satisfied with the activities provided at the home. The AQAA informed us, “As an ongoing process, we will continue to review our activity programmes in line with our residents’ needs. We are also planning in Astoria Park DS0000069673.V362497.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 15 improving our gardens by creating a barbecue area and a sensory garden to facilitate more out door activities. We are looking at increasing outings for the residents which will include relatives and carers.” The AQAA also told us “Service users are taken to town for shopping as they wish or down the village for a walk around the shops. We have entertainers who come to the home to perform twice a month.” Photographs of events, including peolple knitting, growing plants and watching visiting entertainers, were available in the main foyer of the home. Staff stated that these photographs had been taken during 2008. The AQAA identified strategies to improve the availablity of activities, “To continue to focus on person centred care and develop more sensory activities. Look at creating a sensory garden. Provide a long term calendar of social events and encourage relatives (sic) participation. Develop a social activities organising team which includes relatives and volunteers.” This requirement has been met. People told us that sometimes, although not always, they choose when to get up and when to go to bed and this shows that there has been some minor improvement in this area of care, but should continue to be developed as part of the culture of the home. We saw residents receiving visitors and the people’s care records and visitors’ record indicated that there are no restrictions imposed on visitors to the home. According to the AQAA, “We have improved our meals, chef has undergone Nutmeg nutritional training, we have a 4 week menu in place, we have replaced dining room chairs…” One of the resident’s surveys said that the person always liked their meals; 3 of these surveys said that the person usually liked their meals and the remaining survey said that sometimes the person liked their meals at the home. Following our inspection in November 2007 the home has acquired a trolley (“hot box”) to carry hot food from being served, to people’s rooms, with the intention of keeping the food hot. People we spoke with said that sometimes the food is not as hot as they would like. One person said that the food could be “marvellous” but sometimes they did not like the food. Another person told us that their lunch the day before this inspection, was “The best meal I have had for a long time.” We saw staff asking residents what they would like to eat, just before their meal was served to them. The dining tables were well presented with table linen and vases with artificial flowers. Astoria Park DS0000069673.V362497.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 16 The lunch time was observed in the main dining area and serving and assisting people was of a more orderly fashion that we had witnessed during the previous inspection. Astoria Park DS0000069673.V362497.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 17 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 & 18 Quality in this outcome area is good. People are generally listened to and are safe from the risk of abuse. This judgement has been made using available evidence including a visit to this service. EVIDENCE: Four of the 5 service users’ surveys, that we received in November/December 2007, said that the person always knew who to speak to if they were unhappy about something and knew how to make a complaint; the remaining survey told us that sometimes the person knew who to speak to if they were unhappy but did not know how to make a complaint. All of the 5 surveys said that staff listened to the person and acted on what the person said to the staff. Both of the staff surveys told us that they knew what to do if any one had concerns about the home. People we spoke with during this inspection told us that they knew what to do if they were unhappy about something. A survey from a relative told us, “There have been issues regarding the level of care provided by the home. I have written to them and they have responded via their head office - clearly they treated my concerns as a complaint, which was then dealt with through the appropriate procedures. I am not sure, however, that some of the issues have been rectified.” We were informed from another relative’s survey that, “I have brought up certain problems with the Manager, but eventually I have had to contact Southern Cross Manager to sort it out, still sometimes no satisfaction.” Astoria Park DS0000069673.V362497.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 18 Copies of the last two residents’ and relatives’ meetings indicated that those people who had attended were able to make their concerns known and the responses to these concerns (such as staff, activities and food) were of an open and listening manner. A requirement was made for residents to be confident that information divulged (to the Inspector) is treated, in a professional and confidential manner. We consider this requirement has been met as confidentiality was not breached during our inspection. Although the AQAA informed us that within the last 12 months the 12 complaints the home has received, none of these were proven. We discussed this with the Manager and she acknowledged that one of these complaints was substantiated. Since our inspection in November 2007 we have been notified of two allegations of poor standards of care. The registered provider investigated both of these complaints and considered that the allegation of one of the complaints was not proven. We were informed however from an outside agency that the record keeping might not be of a sufficient standard and the Manager agreed with this finding. The other complaint we discussed with the Manager, who had taken advice from the safeguarding (previously known as Protection of Vulnerable Adults or POVA) team. The Manager described what action was taken in response to the complaint and the person making the complaint, was satisfied with the outcome of this action. The record of complaints was examined and we found no recurring elements of the complaints. Some, but not all, dates were recorded, when the complaints were individually resolved. We expect the home to manage this, rather than we make a requirement. A requirement was made, and was carried forward with a new timescale of the 3rd January 2008, for people’s personal belongings to be cared for in a way to prevent damage or loss. This requirement was particular to people’s personal laundry. We visited the laundry area and spoke with staff and with residents. We also looked at the standard of how clothes were washed, ironed and put away in drawers and wardrobes. On the whole there has been a considerable improvement in this area of care. Clothes were hung up in wardrobes and tidily put away in drawers. Clothes that we saw had labels. Some people we spoke with said that there is sometimes a delay in having their clothes returned. The Manager has taken action to ensure that clothes are provided with labels, and this action starts when possible before any person is admitted to the home. Astoria Park DS0000069673.V362497.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 19 This requirement has been met. Staff told us what they would do if they witnessed abuse and the staff training records indicated that staff have attended training in safeguarding issues. According to the AQAA, and confirmed by the Manager, there has been one former member of care staff reported by the registered owner of Astoria Park to the Department of Health (DoH); this person has been entered onto the DoH POVA list, to safeguard vulnerable adults receiving care, from the risk of abuse. Astoria Park DS0000069673.V362497.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 20 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 & 26 Quality in this outcome area is adequate. People live in a place that is continuing to be more homely and comfortable. This judgement has been made using available evidence including a visit to this service. EVIDENCE: A relative’s/visitor’s survey told us, “Furnishings have improved with new carpets/chairs/tables.” The AQAA also told us,” …we have replaced dining room chairs, lounge chairs and bedroom furniture with new ones.We are in the process of decorating our Dementia house, we have a refurbishment plan in process, carpets are being changed as required, rooms are redecorated as required or on request.” We noted that a number of carpets have been replaced and the some of the residents’ doors had been painted with individual colours. Astoria Park DS0000069673.V362497.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 21 Staff said that there had been an improvement in the standard of decoration with rooms being redecorated and this was confirmed by one of the people we spoke with. We saw that the panel of one of the baths was broken and had been stuck together with duct tape. Staff confirmed that the bath and bathroom was currently used by residents. The walls of this bathroom and two toilets were in a poor state of decoration. According to the Manager she has requested additional help to improve the mamaintence of the home. A requirement was made for care practices to be improved upon to reduce the risk of the spread of infection. We saw coats that are used for entering the kitchen area were clean and staff had access to alcohol hand cleaning gel. Although in one of the bathrooms we saw a waste bin, with bagged incontinence pads (that would be better kept in one of the sluice areas of the home) we consider that this requirement has been met. All of the 5 service users’ surveys said that the people were generally satisfied with the standard of cleanliness of the home. The AQAA informed us that,” Service users with high level of incontinence have had their carpets replaced with non slip floors to allow deep cleaning daily.” There were no offensive odours and, apart from the banister area of the main staicase that was dusty, the home was clean throughout. Astoria Park DS0000069673.V362497.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 22 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 & 30 Quality in this outcome area is good. People are provided with safer care due to an improvement in morale and training of staff. This judgement has been made using available evidence including a visit to this service. EVIDENCE: A requirement was made, and was carried forward with a new timescale of the 3rd January 2008, for staff to be sufficient in numbers. All of the 5 service users’ surveys that we received after the inspection in November 2007 said that staff were usually available when the person needed them. The Manager and the staff reported that there has been an increase in the numbers of staff and currently there are no vacancies. The Manager stated that there are two teams of care staff and that each team has responsibility for a designated area of the home. The purpose of such arrangement is to improve the organisation and continuity of the care provided. We saw staff provide care in an individual and unhurried manner and timed the response to calls bells to be less than 3 minutes long. People told us that they considered there was not always enough staff on duty and had to wait for up to an hour at a time before staff attended to them. It was not possible, Astoria Park DS0000069673.V362497.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 23 however, for the people to provide us with information of when these occasions occurred. We consider that this requirement has been met and expect this improvement to be maintained. A survey from a member of staff, that we received after the inspection of 27th November 2007, said, “I think staff morale is going down from day to day and it is just because we don’t get any support from our manager”. Although the AQAA said, “We have built a team that now is slowly feeling supported and we have allowed staff to speak out by having staff meetings” the surveys we have received from care staff, in 2008, told us,” We (also) have staff meeting (sic) and share our concerns and problem (sic) with the manager but we are still waiting for any follow up and action ” and “ Moral (sic) is low causing atmosphere (sic) at times.” We noted however that there has been an improvement in the level of staff morale. Due to improvements in the laundry area, to include ironing and drying equipment, staff were noticeably more positive and happier with their working conditions. Other staff told us that due to the improvement in the home environment, staff training and improved leadership of the teams of staff, staff morale has improved. The AQAA informed us that 55.5 of care staff have an NVQ level 2 or above in care with a number of other staff working towards this qualification. Three staff files were checked and findings indicated that staff only work at the home following the receipt of full and satisfactory information, to include POVA and CRB checks and written references. A relative told us in their survey, “It is very difficult for the elderly to understand foreign carers & nurses plus the foreign carers do not understand some instructions given during training.” Some of the staff on duty at the time of our inspection were from overseas and we found that we could understand them and they could understand what was being said to them. Another of these surveys said, “The care home seems to have ‘lost’ some of its experienced care staff. Their replacements have not yet gained confidence in their skills.” Discussion with people indicated that there might be some lack of confidence in some of the staff’s abilities although this appeared to be related to the staff’s different ethnicities and “newness” to the home. We discussed these findings with the Manager and she stated that she is taking action in response to these issues. The staff told us that they had attended a number of training sessions and we saw in the staff training records that staff have attended training in care of people with incontinence, nutrition, care planning and challenging behaviours. Astoria Park DS0000069673.V362497.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 24 The staff we spoke with were able to tell us detailed information about the people they were caring for, including the personality of the person and their care and social needs. Astoria Park DS0000069673.V362497.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 25 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 & 38 Quality in this outcome area is good. People benefit from a generally well-managed service that continues to slowly improve. This judgement has been made using available evidence including a visit to this service. EVIDENCE: According to the Manager, who is a registered nurse, she has completed her registered manager’s award and is waiting to collect her certificate of attainment. The number of requirements met and the slow, but continued improvement in the overall management of the home, indicates that this standard has been met. Astoria Park DS0000069673.V362497.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 26 The AQAA was completed in a detailed and satisfactory manner and told us areas that the home could improve upon. Reports of monthly visits carried out by a representative of the registered owner, were seen and these contained residents’ and staff views about the home and maintenance and cleanliness of the home environment. Three people’s personal monies were counted and the amount of these reconciled with the balances The AQAA told us that 100 of catering staff and 60 of care staff have attended training in safe food handling and 20 staff have attended training in infection control. Records for hot water checks, fire training, fire drills, fire alarm checks, emergency lighting tests and accidents and incidents were satisfactory. Checks for portable appliance tests are now due and action has been taken to have these tests carried out. Staff told us that they have attended moving and handling training and on the day of our inspection a number of staff were attending training in health and safety. Astoria Park DS0000069673.V362497.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 27 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 3 x 3 x x x 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 2 COMPLAINTS AND PROTECTION Standard No Score 16 3 17 x 18 3 2 x x x x x x 2 STAFFING Standard No Score 27 3 28 3 29 3 30 3 MANAGEMENT AND ADMINISTRATION Standard No 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 Score 3 x 3 x 3 x x 3 Astoria Park DS0000069673.V362497.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 28 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. Refer to Standard Good Practice Recommendations Astoria Park DS0000069673.V362497.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 29 Commission for Social Care Inspection Inspection Team CPC1 Capital Park Fulbourn Cambridge CB21 5XE 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 Astoria Park DS0000069673.V362497.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 30 - 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!