Inspection on 07/08/05 for Beach House

This inspection was carried out on 7th August 2005.

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

Beach House 06/08/08

Beach House 10/10/07

Beach House 13/02/07

Beach House 10/03/06

Beach House 15/03/05

Similar services:

Clover House

Parkside

Park Lodge

Mere Hall View

St Bonaventures

Hudson Road

Whitewalls

Home Farm

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

CARE HOME ADULTS 18-65 BEACH HOUSE 322 Padiham Road Burnley Lancashire BB12 6ST Lead Inspector Marie Dickinson Unannounced 7/09/2005 2:00pm 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 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 Stationary 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. BEACH HOUSE F57F07 61294 Beach House V243710 050905 Stage 4 doc.doc Version 1.40 Page 3 SERVICE INFORMATION Name of service Beach House Address 322 Padiham Road Burnley Lancashire BB12 6ST 01375 483028 Telephone number Fax number Email address Name of registered provider(s)/company (if applicable) Name of registered manager (if applicable) Type of registration No. of places registered (if applicable) Mr Alfonce Zindoga Mrs Concilla Tambudzai Zindoga Care Home (CRH) 6 Category(ies) of Learning Disability (LD) = 6 registration, with number of places BEACH HOUSE F57F07 61294 Beach House V243710 050905 Stage 4 doc.doc Version 1.40 Page 4 SERVICE INFORMATION Conditions of registration: The registered person shall ensure that a suitably qualified and experienced manager who is registered with the Commission be employed in the home. The registered person shall ensure that staffing levels in the home remain at the same level as required by the Commission for Social Care Inspection The home is registered to provide personal care and accommodation for six people with a learning disability. Date of last inspection 15 March 2005 Brief Description of the Service: Beach House is a large garden fronted terraced house, situated within a short walking distance to Burnley Town, and is in keeping with the neighbourhood. Mr and Mrs Zindoga own the home and Mrs Zinoga is the registered manager. The home accommodates six people in four single and one double bedroom, most of which are en suite. There is a lounge, dining room, kitchen and laundry room, all domestic in scale and appearance. BEACH HOUSE F57F07 61294 Beach House V243710 050905 Stage 4 doc.doc Version 1.40 Page 5 SUMMARY This is an overview of what the inspector found during the inspection. This inspection was unannounced and was carried out over a two day period. The Inspector looked at written information and records relating to residents and staff. People who live at the home and staff on duty were spoken to for their views. The Inspector also looked at how service users views were obtained by those responsible for the home and how these could be used to improve their quality of life. The care given to service users was looked at and the Inspector asked service users about their personal experiences and of life in the home. The previous inspection showed areas of the running of the home that needed to improve. The progress on these was looked at. What the service does well: Before anyone stays at the home, they benefit from an assessment carried out by the manager and admissions are planned. Activities were varied and residents said these were personal to them. They had the opportunity to make decisions about their lives. They said staff helped them and took into account their wishes. They learned new skills. To make sure all residents’ needs were met, care staff had clear guidance in what each person needed. Sufficient staff were employed, were supervised in their work. Teamwork was evident and the manager worked care shifts with the staff. Staff said they enjoyed their work and chosen career. Residents were protected by correct recruitment procedures that were followed. Staff received training and had regular supervision. Teamwork was evident and staff showed a commitment to good practice in their work. Residents said the carers treated them well. BEACH HOUSE F57F07 61294 Beach House V243710 050905 Stage 4 doc.doc Version 1.40 Page 6 The overall provision of the facilities in the home was to residents liking, ‘homely’ and ‘comfortable’ and the standard of hygiene maintained was observed as being good. Confidence was expressed in how the home was managed. What has improved since the last inspection? What they could do better: For residents to have access to a telephone to use in an emergency, the existing telephone should be replaced or repaired. In the event of a resident not having a front door key, the front door bell should be linked to the staff sleeping in accommodation to avoid a situation of residents not being able to gain access to the home. Although it is nearly achieved, the percentage of staff trained to a National Vocational Qualification in Care level two and above should be at least 50 as recommended in standards. BEACH HOUSE F57F07 61294 Beach House V243710 050905 Stage 4 doc.doc Version 1.40 Page 7 The manager should hold a qualification in management to complement the high standard of care qualifications achieved. To complete the process of quality reviews, a report and action plan on the results should be written and made available for people to read. A copy must also be sent to the Commission. 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. BEACH HOUSE F57F07 61294 Beach House V243710 050905 Stage 4 doc.doc Version 1.40 Page 8 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 Standards Statutory Requirements Identified During the Inspection BEACH HOUSE F57F07 61294 Beach House V243710 050905 Stage 4 doc.doc Version 1.40 Page 9 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 at least once during a 12 month period. JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for standard(s) 3,4,5 Procedures were in place to ensure all residents are admitted in a proper manner. Proper use of assessment information and planning for resident being admitted helped to make sure the home could offer the right care. The assessments completed contained sufficient information to write a plan of care. Every person living at the home had a written contract. EVIDENCE: There had been no new admissions since the last inspection. One person however was considering moving into the home. This was being planned. The person had visited the home and looked at the accommodation being offered. Residents’ files contained copies of assessments completed by health and social care professionals. Together these documents provided a clear and detailed picture of the resident’s needs. There was evidenced in completed assessments, people are visited prior to their admission for trial periods. The assessments had taken into account the resident’s needs in relation to the environment, staffing levels and current residents living at the home. Contracts were given to residents. Residents said they understood what information was written and had agreed the terms and conditions of their stay. BEACH HOUSE F57F07 61294 Beach House V243710 050905 Stage 4 doc.doc Version 1.40 Page 10 BEACH HOUSE F57F07 61294 Beach House V243710 050905 Stage 4 doc.doc Version 1.40 Page 11 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 at least once during a 12 month period. JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for standard(s) 6,7,8,9,10. Residents benefited from good assessments to ensure that all their needs were considered. Being involved in writing their own care plans meant they could have personal goals that staff knew about and helped them achieve safely. Information such as policies and procedures helped residents to be involved in all aspects of life in the home, and informed them of the principle of keeping their records private. EVIDENCE: The standard of residents’ care records was good, and included an up to date assessment of needs. There were clear directions for staff as to the type and amount of support residents’ required meeting their needs. Specialist help required for residents was identified and the support provided. Restrictions on residents doing what they liked that may cause them problems was recorded and agreed with them. Residents said these agreements helped them, and they understood the consequences if they were ignored. Residents benefited from the support of a member of staff called a ‘key worker’. The key workers role included the responsibility in making sure the BEACH HOUSE F57F07 61294 Beach House V243710 050905 Stage 4 doc.doc Version 1.40 Page 12 resident’s needs were met. Residents in the home said they were pleased with their carer referring to them as ‘ I can discuss things with her if I have a problem,’ and ‘I go to the gym and he is my friend’. They also said their carer took them to hospital appointments and shopping’. The residents looked after their own money with the help of staff. This was recorded in their files. Care plans were reviewed regularly showing progress and changes needed in meeting needs or achieving goals. When asked about care plans, residents said they were involved in writing them. They had discussions about their care with Mrs Zindoga and their carer. Residents said that they were involved in making decisions. They had their own policies and procedures they had agreed on. Risk assessments were clearly written. Action required to minimise the risk was recorded and agreed. During the inspection it was clear staff considered confidentiality of resident information and records to be important. These were kept secure in the office. Confidentiality was included in induction training and the staff handbook. Residents were confident that information about them was handled correctly. They also had information on confidentiality given to them which was easy to understand. BEACH HOUSE F57F07 61294 Beach House V243710 050905 Stage 4 doc.doc Version 1.40 Page 13 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 at least once during a 12 month period. JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for standard(s) 11,12,13,14,15,16,17. Residents living in the home were given opportunities to live a fulfilling lifestyle. This included social activities and learning new skills for personal development, and care was provided in such a way to keep their privacy and dignity. Residents were helped to keep in touch with their families and friends. Residents were provided with a nutritious and varied diet. EVIDENCE: Residents were given opportunities for personal development. This was seen in care plans. Weekly planners were used to show what each resident was doing. For example when they cooked a meal, cleaned their bedroom and had a bath. Staff helped them where needed. Resident’s had different views about their opportunities to take part in activities. They also said they pleased themselves what activity they joined in. One resident had achieved a National Vocational Qualification in gardening level one, and was hoping to do a level two. College courses were available and staff helped the residents choose what they could do. One resident said, “there’s nothing going on, a lot of classes have stopped”, however staff did BEACH HOUSE F57F07 61294 Beach House V243710 050905 Stage 4 doc.doc Version 1.40 Page 14 help her to enrol on courses during the day which she described as o.k. Records of achievement were displayed in bedrooms. Residents were able to make full use of community facilities. One resident said he went into the town regularly. He enjoyed watching Burnley play football matches. They also went out, had outings, shopping and one resident went to the gym. Public transport was used where possible. Care plans included when needed, directions for staff to escort residents for walks or to the shops or other venues. Staff working in the house said that they encouraged residents in activities. One resident had a regular visitor to the home for a drink and chat. The visiting policy enabled residents to have visitors at any time and allowed for residents to refuse to see visitors if they wished. One resident spent weekends with a relative. In addition to awareness of residents’ basic rights being included in induction training and in the staff handbook, during the course of the inspection staff on duty were seen to treat residents with respect and were mindful of their right to privacy. Residents had their preferred name stated on their plan. They had locks on their doors and managed their own keys. Residents said the food was good. It was to their liking. They planned their own menus and took turns to cook. Staff helped them. BEACH HOUSE F57F07 61294 Beach House V243710 050905 Stage 4 doc.doc Version 1.40 Page 15 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 at least once during a 12 month period. JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for standard(s) 18,19,20. By recording individual preferred routines likes and dislikes, this allowed residents to experience personal care in a dignified manner. Residents said staff always considered their privacy. Medication was managed correctly. EVIDENCE: Residents said their routine was special to them. Individual records outlining preferred routines, likes and dislikes showed this, as they all did different things during the day and evening. Residents confirmed support with personal care if needed was given in private. Their key worker mainly helped them. Residents said they liked their carer and were happy with how they helped them. Residents confirmed staff were involved with other professional people in their care. This included healthcare and part of the staff role was to help them attend medical appointments. Medication was managed correctly. Records were up to date and good practice advised by the pharmacist had been put into place. BEACH HOUSE F57F07 61294 Beach House V243710 050905 Stage 4 doc.doc Version 1.40 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 at least once during a 12 month period. JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for standard(s) 22,23 Residents felt their interests were protected. They were confident in the owners and staff to deal with complaints properly. Good practice in employment safe guarded residents financial interests. EVIDENCE: Residents in the home were aware they had the right to make a complaint should the need occur. They said they were confident Mrs Zindoga would listen to them. Comments received from service users said they ‘talked to their carers about matters’, and felt ‘safe’ in the home. Abuse procedures had been discussed with staff and were part of their training. Staff had also signed a declaration on appointment excluding them from any financial gain from residents. BEACH HOUSE F57F07 61294 Beach House V243710 050905 Stage 4 doc.doc Version 1.40 Page 17 Environment The intended outcomes for Standards 24 – 30 are: 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. Service users live in a homely, comfortable and safe environment. Service users’ bedrooms suit their needs and lifestyles. Service users’ bedrooms promote their independence. Service users’ toilets and bathrooms provide sufficient privacy and meet their individual needs. Shared spaces complement and supplement service users’ individual rooms. Service users have the specialist equipment they require to maximise their independence. The home is clean and hygienic. The Commission considers Standards 24, and 30 the key standards to be inspected at least once during a 12 month period. JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for standard(s) 24,25,27,28,30 Residents lived in a comfortable homely environment, which they said they liked. Their rooms were private and they had their own shower and toilet off their bedroom. The lounge, dining room, kitchen and laundry were shared. Standards of hygiene were high. EVIDENCE: Beach House is a terraced property in Burnley. Residents are accommodated in four single and one double bedroom. There is a lounge, dining room, kitchen and laundry room. The furnishings and fittings were ‘homelike’ in style and of a good quality. Residents made positive comments about the home. They were of the opinion ‘it’s alright’ and ‘I’m quite happy living here.’ The home was well maintained, and records showed that repairs were carried out promptly. However the telephone for residents use was broken and although Mrs Zindoga said they had use of the office telephone, this was not always possible, as the office is kept locked when staff are out. The doorbell was not linked to staff night sleeping accommodation, and this had resulted in a resident being unable to gain access to the home. BEACH HOUSE F57F07 61294 Beach House V243710 050905 Stage 4 doc.doc Version 1.40 Page 18 Residents were generally happy with their bedrooms. From looking around the premises, it was obvious that residents were able to personalise their rooms. The en suite facilities in their rooms included a toilet and shower and help promote their independence. In addition to this there is a communal bathroom they can also use. There is a small garden area to the front. The back yard is small but provides a sheltered area for people who want to smoke. The laundry room is near to the yard. Residents do their own laundry with staff helping. As the home is domestic in scale, access to the laundry is through the kitchen. Because of this there is good practice in how laundry is handled, with a policy and procedure to follow. BEACH HOUSE F57F07 61294 Beach House V243710 050905 Stage 4 doc.doc Version 1.40 Page 19 Staffing The intended outcomes for Standards 31 – 36 are: 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. Service users benefit from clarity of staff roles and responsibilities. Service users are supported by competent and qualified staff. Service users are supported by an effective staff team. Service users are supported and protected by the home’s recruitment policy and practices. Service users’ individual and joint needs are met by appropriately trained staff. Service users benefit from well supported and supervised staff. The Commission considers Standards 35 the key standard to be inspected at least once during a 12 month period. JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for standard(s) 31,32,33,34,35,36, Good staff recruitment procedures were followed. Service users benefited from staff who enjoyed their work and were given opportunities for relevant training and were supervised. EVIDENCE: The home was fully staffed during the inspection. The current level of staffing was linked to the needs of the residents. All staff were clear about their roles and responsibilities within the home. The residents were very happy with the staff in the home. They said they had time for them, and were involved in ‘home life’. They were introduced to new staff before they started work. One new staff member had been employed since the last inspection. Records showed correct recruitment procedures had been carried out. References had been applied for and Criminal Record Bureaux (CRB) and Protection of Vulnerable Adults (POVA) check had been obtained prior to staff working in the home. All staff had induction training. The percentage of staff trained to National Vocational Qualification in Care level two and above remains just below 50 . BEACH HOUSE F57F07 61294 Beach House V243710 050905 Stage 4 doc.doc Version 1.40 Page 20 Information sent to the Commission shows that this training has been planned. In addition to this staff have received other training to help them in their career in social care. Staff said they enjoyed their work and the content of training sessions given was good. They also said they were encouraged and supported to attend training and they received supervision regularly. BEACH HOUSE F57F07 61294 Beach House V243710 050905 Stage 4 doc.doc Version 1.40 Page 21 Conduct and Management of the Home The intended outcomes for Standards 37 – 43 are: 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. Service users benefit from a well run home. Service users benefit from the ethos, leadership and management approach of the home. Service users are confident their views underpin all self-monitoring, review and development by the home. Service users’ rights and best interests are safeguarded by the home’s policies and procedures. Service users’ rights and best interests are safeguarded by the home’s record keeping policies and procedures. The health, safety and welfare of service users are promoted and protected. Service users benefit from competent and accountable management of the service. The Commission considers Standards 39, and 42 the key standards to be inspected at least once during a 12 month period. JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for standard(s) 37,38,39,40,41,42. Residents and staff were happy with the way the home was managed. Guidance and support was given to staff, which contributed towards ensuring the resident’s quality of life experience in the home was to their liking. Teamwork was noted. The health, safety and welfare of residents was considered and residents had their say in the running of the home. EVIDENCE: The owners Mr and Mrs Zindoga work in the home. Mrs Zindoga is the registered manager. She has relevant qualifications and many years experience working with people with a learning disability. She has kept up to date with training. Information sent to the Commission outlines her intention to gain the Registered Managers Award. BEACH HOUSE F57F07 61294 Beach House V243710 050905 Stage 4 doc.doc Version 1.40 Page 22 Staff and residents said they pleased with the owners because they could speak to them individually and they were also involved in their care. Residents felt they ‘were listened to’. Staff said they had regular meetings, and had the opportunity to discuss work issues. They had support with training. Confidential records were locked away. Residents had the benefit of up to date relevant policies and procedure. The views of the residents were considered important, and they were consulted about issues that affected them in the home. However views of residents and relatives from anonymous questionnaires of the care and facilities, should be published and made available for people to look at, and a copy sent to the Commission. Whilst the management generally considered the health, safety and welfare of residents, incidents/events affecting the well-being or safety of residents, had occurred since the previous inspection, and the Commission were not notified. Insurance cover was in place and maintenance of the property was ongoing, with regular safety checks being carried out. Training in health and safety is also provided for staff to help them at work. BEACH HOUSE F57F07 61294 Beach House V243710 050905 Stage 4 doc.doc Version 1.40 Page 23 SCORING OF OUTCOMES This page summarises the assessment of the extent to which the National Minimum Standards for Care Homes for Adults 18-65 have been met and uses the following scale. The scale ranges from: 4 Standard Exceeded 2 Standard Almost Met (Commendable) (Minor Shortfalls) 3 Standard Met 1 Standard Not Met (No Shortfalls) (Major Shortfalls) “X” in the standard met box denotes standard not assessed on this occasion “N/A” in the standard met box denotes standard not applicable CHOICE OF HOME CONCERNS AND COMPLAINTS Standard No 1 2 3 4 5 Score x x 3 3 3 Standard No 22 23 ENVIRONMENT Score 3 3 INDIVIDUAL NEEDS AND CHOICES Standard No 6 7 8 9 10 LIFESTYLES Score 3 3 3 3 3 Score Standard No 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 STAFFING Score 2 3 x 3 3 x 3 Standard No 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Standard No 31 32 33 34 35 36 Score 3 2 3 3 3 3 CONDUCT AND MANAGEMENT OF THE HOME PERSONAL AND HEALTHCARE SUPPORT Standard No 18 19 20 21 BEACH HOUSE Score 3 3 3 x Standard No 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 Score 2 3 2 3 3 2 x F57F07 61294 Beach House V243710 050905 Stage 4 doc.doc Version 1.40 Page 24 Are there any outstanding requirements from the last inspection? STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS This section sets out the actions which must be taken so that the registered person/s meets the Care Standards Act 2000, Care Homes Regulations 2001 and the National Minimum Standards. The Registered Provider(s) must comply with the given timescales. No. 1. 2. Standard 24 42 Regulation 16(2)(b) 37(1) Timescale for action The telephone in the home for immediate residents use must be repaired from or replaced. 13/09/05 The Commission must be notified immediate immediately of any significant from event concerning the care of 13/09/05 residents. Requirement RECOMMENDATIONS These recommendations relate to National Minimum Standards and are seen as good practice for the Registered Provider/s to consider carrying out. No. 1. 2. 3. 4. Refer to Standard 24 32 37 39 Good Practice Recommendations It is recommended the front door bell be linked to the staff sleeping in accommodation It is recommended 50 of staff are trained to a National Vocational Qualification in care level 2. It is recommended the manager completes a management qualification. It is recommended that a copy of the review of quality of care report carried out at the home be sent to the Commission. BEACH HOUSE F57F07 61294 Beach House V243710 050905 Stage 4 doc.doc Version 1.40 Page 25 Commission for Social Care Inspection Unit 4, Petre Road Clayton Business Park Accrington BB5 5JB National Enquiry Line: 0845 015 0120 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 BEACH HOUSE F57F07 61294 Beach House V243710 050905 Stage 4 doc.doc Version 1.40 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!