Inspection on 12/01/07 for Bridge Court Bungalow

This inspection was carried out on 12th January 2007.

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

The inspector found there to be outstanding requirements from the previous inspection report. These are things the inspector asked to be changed, but found they had not done. The inspector also made 5 statutory requirements (actions the home must comply with) as a result of this inspection.

Other inspections for this house

Bridge Court Bungalow 17/12/05

Bridge Court Bungalow 18/04/05

Bridge Court Bungalow 22/09/04

Bridge Court Bungalow 05/05/04

Similar services:

22 Sandown Road

The Highlands

Dilston College Of Further Education

West View House

Prince Bishop Court

Park View (15)

Craigmore House

1 Lanark Close

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

CARE HOME ADULTS 18-65 Bridge Court Bungalow Bridge Court High Street Normanby Middlesbrough TS6 0LD Lead Inspector Mrs Ann Ferguson Key Unannounced Inspection 12th January 2007 09:00 Bridge Court Bungalow DS0000000110.V323805.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 1 The Commission for Social Care Inspection aims to: • • • • Put the people who use social care first Improve services and stamp out bad practice Be an expert voice on social care Practise what we preach in our own organisation Reader Information Document Purpose Author Audience Further copies from Copyright Inspection Report CSCI General Public 0870 240 7535 (telephone order line) This report is copyright Commission for Social Care Inspection (CSCI) and may only be used in its entirety. Extracts may not be used or reproduced without the express permission of CSCI www.csci.org.uk Internet address Bridge Court Bungalow DS0000000110.V323805.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 2 This is a report of an inspection to assess whether services are meeting the needs of people who use them. The legal basis for conducting inspections is the Care Standards Act 2000 and the relevant National Minimum Standards for this establishment are those for Care Homes for Adults 18-65. They can be found at www.dh.gov.uk or obtained from The Stationery Office (TSO) PO Box 29, St Crispins, Duke Street, Norwich, NR3 1GN. Tel: 0870 600 5522. Online ordering: www.tso.co.uk/bookshop This report is a public document. Extracts may not be used or reproduced without the prior permission of the Commission for Social Care Inspection. Bridge Court Bungalow DS0000000110.V323805.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 3 SERVICE INFORMATION Name of service Bridge Court Bungalow Address Bridge Court High Street Normanby Middlesbrough TS6 0LD 01642 463356 F/P 01642 463356 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) http/www.milburycare.com/home.html Milbury Care Services Limited Mr Geoffrey Sirs Care Home 6 Category(ies) of Learning disability (6) registration, with number of places Bridge Court Bungalow DS0000000110.V323805.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 4 SERVICE INFORMATION Conditions of registration: Date of last inspection 17th December 2005 Brief Description of the Service: Bridge Court Bungalow is a modern purpose-built property situated in a quiet cul-de-sac off Normanby High Street. Accommodation is provided in six single bedrooms, none having an en-suite facility but all meeting the spatial requirements of the National Minimum Standards. The bungalow has its own private garden and residents are able to access the more extensive grounds of Bridge House (another Milbury home for people with learning disabilities on the same site). The home is within easy walking distance of local community facilities: Church; shops; public houses etc. The public transport system provides direct access to the coast, countryside and Middlesbrough town centre. Bridge Court Bungalow DS0000000110.V323805.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 5 SUMMARY This is an overview of what the inspector found during the inspection. This unannounced inspection commenced at 9.30am and lasted for seven and a quarter hours. Four staff members were spoken to during the inspection. The manager was not at work on the day of the inspection. Two residents spoke to the inspector. House records including individual plans of care, staff recruitment files, medication records, staff training and supervision records were looked at. Also, personal allowance records, health and safety records, and policies and procedures were examined. The pre-inspection questionnaire was received before the inspection although this was only completed in part and therefore completed on the day of the inspection. Five comment cards were received from the residents. A tour of the home was carried out. What the service does well: What has improved since the last inspection? There have been some improvements to the environment, for example, the flooring in the bathroom, and repairs to the shower room. There has been a lot of planning to make sure that staff receive the training they need to do their job correctly. There is now a very thorough annual training programme in place. The quality assurance monitoring system is now in place and covers all the required elements. Bridge Court Bungalow DS0000000110.V323805.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 6 What they could do better: Please contact the provider for advice of actions taken in response to this inspection. The report of this inspection is available from enquiries@csci.gsi.gov.uk or by contacting your local CSCI office. The summary of this inspection report can be made available in other formats on request. Bridge Court Bungalow DS0000000110.V323805.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 7 DETAILS OF INSPECTOR FINDINGS CONTENTS Choice of Home (Standards 1–5) Individual Needs and Choices (Standards 6-10) Lifestyle (Standards 11-17) Personal and Healthcare Support (Standards 18-21) Concerns, Complaints and Protection (Standards 22-23) Environment (Standards 24-30) Staffing (Standards 31-36) Conduct and Management of the Home (Standards 37 – 43) Scoring of Outcomes Statutory Requirements Identified During the Inspection Bridge Court Bungalow DS0000000110.V323805.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 8 Choice of Home The intended outcomes for Standards 1 – 5 are: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Prospective service users have the information they need to make an informed choice about where to live. Prospective users’ individual aspirations and needs are assessed. Prospective service users know that the home that they will choose will meet their needs and aspirations. Prospective service users have an opportunity to visit and to “test drive” the home. Each service user has an individual written contract or statement of terms and conditions with the home. The Commission consider Standard 2 the key standard to be inspected. JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for the following standard(s): 2 Quality in this outcome area is adequate A discussion with staff indicates that a thorough and planned assessment of prospective users’ needs would take place before admission. However, there have not been any new admissions for some years now. An examination of service users’ files did not show the pre-admission assessments for existing service users. EVIDENCE: There have not been any new admissions to Bridge Court since 2000. Three service users’ care plans were examined but their pre-admission assessments were not found. However, there were copies of regular reviews with the funding authorities to confirm that the placement still met the service users’ needs. A discussion with a staff member indicated that a thorough process would be followed for any prospective service users before they moved into the house. Also, the house would organise a phased introduction into the house, building up the length of time they spent there to make sure it was a good placement. Bridge Court Bungalow DS0000000110.V323805.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 9 Individual Needs and Choices The intended outcomes for Standards 6 – 10 are: 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. Service users know their assessed and changing needs and personal goals are reflected in their individual Plan. Service users make decisions about their lives with assistance as needed. Service users are consulted on, and participate in, all aspects of life in the home. Service users are supported to take risks as part of an independent lifestyle. Service users know that information about them is handled appropriately, and that their confidences are kept. The Commission considers Standards 6, 7 and 9 the key standards to be inspected. JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for the following standard(s): 6, 7, and 9 Quality in this outcome area is adequate An examination of individual care plans and house records indicates that service users do have clear goals and plans, they are supported to take risks, and they make their own decisions. However, there is not very much planning and evidencing of activities which can then be used to see if their agreed goals have been met. EVIDENCE: Three personal files were examined and all of these had a service user plan. These were clearly written and individualised. In two of the files, though, they were not dated and therefore they may not accurately reflect changing needs. One plan had been reviewed in June 2006 but another one had not been reviewed at all. In all three files there was an individual procedure for aggressive behaviour. In one case this had been recently signed (June 2006) by all relevant parties Bridge Court Bungalow DS0000000110.V323805.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 10 including the service user, house manager, care manager and doctor, for example. In the other two files this document was last reviewed in June 2005. One service user had a very good plan written to manage their behaviour. It was informative and sensitive, however it was written in 2001 and there were no notes on it to suggest it had been reviewed. Therefore, it may not be relevant now. The service users make their own decisions regularly in their home. On the day of inspection, the inspector observed people deciding when they would get up, what they would do, what they wanted to eat, and if they would go out. The staff made use of opportunities as they arose during the day to offer people choices. From the questionnaires received from service users, four of them said that they were always involved in deciding what they wanted to do each day. One member of staff said that they enjoyed working with people in a ‘teaching role’ and another said that their role was to encourage the service users ‘to live as independently as possible’. There is an activities plan/ programme for the week to provide a framework and staff do summarise what each person has done after each shift. Here staff indicate if people have refused to do certain things. Each service user has individual goals but it was unclear how the service collected information to inform progress in achieving their goals. A comment written on the Regulation 26 (this is a report written by the provider following their unannounced monthly visit to the service to monitor the standard of care provided) received by CSCI in July 2006 suggested that the house should have ‘more days out and planning around activities’. In January 2006 the comment was about needing ‘more in-house activities’. One service user manages their own finances and, on the day of the inspection, they were going to the bank to collect their own money. That person is attending college to develop their understanding in this area too. However, once more it was difficult to see how the service was collating this information, and how the service user would know they had achieved this goal. Risk assessments are written to support service users to take part in varied activities. Staff described clearly such examples of risk-taking, for example, one person going to college unaccompanied. Documents received by CSCI from the home manager shows that the service fully understands their risk assessment process and responds appropriately to unexplained absences according to the risk assessments. Bridge Court Bungalow DS0000000110.V323805.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 11 Lifestyle The intended outcomes for Standards 11 - 17 are: 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. Service users have opportunities for personal development. Service users are able to take part in age, peer and culturally appropriate activities. Service users are part of the local community. Service users engage in appropriate leisure activities. Service users have appropriate personal, family and sexual relationships. Service users’ rights are respected and responsibilities recognised in their daily lives. Service users are offered a healthy diet and enjoy their meals and mealtimes. The Commission considers Standards 12, 13, 15, 16 and 17 the key standards to be inspected. JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for the following standard(s): 12, 13, 15, 16 and 17 Quality in this outcome area is good An examination of service user records and observation on the day indicates that service users are supported to identify their goals, and work towards some of them. Residents are involved in meaningful activities of their own choice. Service users are involved in the domestic routines in the home, and relationships with family and friends are encouraged. Mealtimes are relaxed, and the diet is varied. EVIDENCE: The service users are involved in many varied and appropriate activities. One person works in a café part-time and attends college to study cooking and numeracy. The home continues the numeracy work with this person back at the house, to develop this skill and further their independence. The service user told the inspector that they were supported by staff to cook meals in the house, thereby building on their skills. On the day of the inspection one service user was attending their gardening course, which they go to each week. Bridge Court Bungalow DS0000000110.V323805.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 12 The service users make much use of community facilities both near the house and further afield. In addition to accessing courses and working, service users regularly go shopping, collect their prescriptions, visit the bank, and access local health facilities. They have a car to facilitate this but also take public transport or walk. On the day of the inspection at one point there was only one service user at home, everyone else having gone out to do a number of jobs. Some of the service users are sometimes reluctant to go out at a particular time. Staff are all aware of this and respond consistently and appropriately. These incidents are recorded. The home does need to give thought to how it records events to analyse any patterns of behaviour and make required changes to support. Families and other visitors are welcomed at Bridge Court. Some parents were visiting their son on the day of the inspection, and they spoke to the inspector. They said there were no difficulties getting to visit their child, that everyone was as helpful as they could be. The service users can see their friends where they choose in the house. The service users’ rights are respected by staff in the home. The inspector observed staff knocking on service users’ doors before entering. There was a very relaxed feel in the house on the day of the inspection with people getting up when they needed to or wanted to, and then making decisions for the day with staff. At lunchtime the inspector observed service users and staff interacting well, chatting to one another. During the day the service users moved from the communal areas to their own rooms as they wished. The routines observed very much encouraged individual choice and freedom of movement. The service users have unrestricted access to the kitchen and can help themselves to snacks and drinks as they wish. Everyone tends to sit together at the dining table for meals. Service users have a balanced and varied diet, which includes at least one hot meal a day. All the service users assisted in the meal in some way, for example, cooking, setting the table, or clearing up afterwards. The inspector observed a lunchtime and it was relaxed and unhurried. Staff were all aware of individuals’ needs or preferences with food, for example, not over-facing someone with too much on their plate, or distracting another person to avoid them over-eating. Such observations were sensitive and appropriate to the individual. Bridge Court Bungalow DS0000000110.V323805.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 13 Personal and Healthcare Support The intended outcomes for Standards 18 - 21 are: 18. 19. 20. 21. Service users receive personal support in the way they prefer and require. Service users’ physical and emotional health needs are met. Service users retain, administer and control their own medication where appropriate, and are protected by the home’s policies and procedures for dealing with medicines. The ageing, illness and death of a service user are handled with respect and as the individual would wish. The Commission considers Standards 18, 19, and 20 the key standards to be inspected. JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for the following standard(s): 18, 19 and 20 Quality in this outcome area is good An examination of service users files indicates that staff are responsive to the individual requirements of the service users. Residents have access to health services and staff make sure that regular appointments are made. A discussion of the medication procedure followed indicates that it is generally sound but further records are needed for medication taken as required. EVIDENCE: Five questionnaires were received from service users before the inspection and all of these indicated that service users were very happy with the way in which staff supported them. They also said that staff always listened to them. All the support plans examined were respectful, individualised, and promoted independence. These records had not all been reviewed though and this needs to be addressed to make sure that peoples’ views have not changed. Bridge Court Bungalow DS0000000110.V323805.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 14 The service users’ file examined showed that there was good communication between the individual and other health professionals. People made use of chiropodists, opticians, and dentists, for example, as required. One service user would often not attend their appointments due to personal difficulties and, whilst the staff at the house understand the reasons for this, the situation does need looking at carefully to make sure that their health does not deteriorate. Some of the records were out of date, for example, none of the weight charts examined had been filled in since August 2006. The home has a thorough procedure for administering medicines each day. These are kept in blister packs, made up by the pharmacist where possible. A member of staff explained the process thoroughly to the inspector, from the ordering, storage and returning of medication. Medication is administered by senior staff, in accordance with their policy. Staff receive training in this area. The inspector noted that the same checks are not done for medication administered as required (PRN). There was no record of how much stock of this kind was held on the premises. It was agreed that the recording of this medication would begin straight away. The house discusses with the service users if they wish to administer their own medication. The outcome of these discussions were found to be recorded clearly. Bridge Court Bungalow DS0000000110.V323805.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 15 Concerns, Complaints and Protection The intended outcomes for Standards 22 – 23 are: 22. 23. Service users feel their views are listened to and acted on. Service users are protected from abuse, neglect and self-harm. The Commission considers Standards 22, and 23 the key standards to be inspected. JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for the following standard(s): 22 and 23 Quality in this outcome area is good An examination of service user questionnaires and their records indicates that they know about the complaints procedure, and it is accessible. The staff training records, and the financial procedures in place, indicate that procedures are robust to protect the service users from abuse. EVIDENCE: There is a complaints procedure available within the home, and this is also available in an accessible format. All the service users who returned a questionnaire said that they knew about the complaints procedure. One service user has made a complaint since the last inspection and this was responded too within the required timescale. The complaint was substantiated and the problem put right. The financial arrangements for three service users were examined, and discussed with the staff member. All the relevant building society statements were available to see. All expenditure was accounted for with receipts, and all the balances checked were correct. Training in the Protection of Vulnerable Adults is provided for staff within the home. Bridge Court Bungalow DS0000000110.V323805.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 16 Environment The intended outcomes for Standards 24 – 30 are: 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. Service users live in a homely, comfortable and safe environment. Service users’ bedrooms suit their needs and lifestyles. Service users’ bedrooms promote their independence. Service users’ toilets and bathrooms provide sufficient privacy and meet their individual needs. Shared spaces complement and supplement service users’ individual rooms. Service users have the specialist equipment they require to maximise their independence. The home is clean and hygienic. The Commission considers Standards 24, and 30 the key standards to be inspected. JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for the following standard(s): 24 and 30 Quality in this outcome area is good A tour of the building and an examination of maintenance records indicates that the home is a very pleasant, safe place in which to live. The home is clean and tidy, and smells fresh. EVIDENCE: Overall, the home is well-maintained and provides homely, comfortable and personalised accommodation for the service users. The kitchen was spacious and clean, and suitable for the amount of use it got. Since the last inspection there has been a new oven and dishwasher installed. At the moment a new dining table and chairs is on order as the others are quite dated. There is a choice of lounge for the service users, either in the main lounge or in a different ‘quiet room’ for those who may want that. Bridge Court Bungalow DS0000000110.V323805.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 17 The shower room needs some work doing to it at the moment because the room easily floods when someone takes a shower. The light pull in the room is wrongly positioned too and this needs altering. New flooring has been identified for in the toilet. Discussion with staff suggested that it is often quite difficult to get the organisation to agree to the bigger maintenance needs and it will take a long time to get approval. The corridors were all well-maintained and in good decorative order although a member of staff said that new light fittings were being arranged to brighten it up. A sample of water temperatures were taken in the communal areas and these were within the limits, reaching 42 degrees C. Whilst the laundry facilities are suitable for the home, the service users’ activities are being stored on high shelves in the laundry room. A member of staff did say that extra storage facilities were being discussed within the home so such things could be more easily accessible to the service users. On the day of the inspection the house smelt very fresh and was clean throughout. Bridge Court Bungalow DS0000000110.V323805.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 18 Staffing The intended outcomes for Standards 31 – 36 are: 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. Service users benefit from clarity of staff roles and responsibilities. Service users are supported by competent and qualified staff. Service users are supported by an effective staff team. Service users are supported and protected by the home’s recruitment policy and practices. Service users’ individual and joint needs are met by appropriately trained staff. Service users benefit from well supported and supervised staff. The Commission considers Standards 32, 34 and 35 the key standards to be inspected. JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for the following standard(s): 32, 34, 35 and 36 Quality in this outcome area is good An examination of individual staff files and discussion with staff indicates that training is provided for staff that focuses on improving outcomes for the service users. Discussion with staff demonstrates that the service has a recruitment process that meets the regulations but shortfalls in the recording process were evident. Staff receive supervision but infrequently. EVIDENCE: Three staff files were examined and they all contained an application form and written references. The CRB disclosures were there for all three staff but in one case the staff member started work more than two weeks before their disclosure came through, according to the records. PoVA checks were there for two of the staff. The recruitment processes do need to be looked at to make sure that all the required information is available. Bridge Court Bungalow DS0000000110.V323805.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 19 There was a very thorough training plan for the whole staff team. This showed that mandatory training courses were provided, ie, Health and Safety, First Aid, Moving and Handling, Food Hygiene, Fire Safety, and the Safe Handling of Medication. As well, staff receive training in Protection of Vulnerable Adults, Person Centred Planning, Communication, and Managing Challenging Behaviour. Other service-specific training is offered too. Talking to staff confirmed that they are asked to complete a lot of training, starting with the mandatory training, LDAF and now NVQ. All the staff files examined did include individual training records but these were not all up to date. In two of the files the training booked for individuals to attend was written down but the records were not updated to show the actual training received in 2006. In all the files, evidence of an induction into the job was found although in one file this began six weeks after their start date and in another file it was four weeks after. Supervision of staff does take place but, according to the staff files, it is infrequent. One member of staff started work in October 2006 and had one recorded supervision. In the other two files the staff had no recorded supervision since May 2006. The inspector looked at a piece of paper which gave dates for all staff to have a supervision in January or February 2007 but this falls short of the minimum standard of a recorded meeting at least six times a year. Staff confirmed that they typically have a supervision meeting every three months although they will approach others before this time if they need any support. One member of staff had responsibility for supervising others but had not received any training in this area and did not feel very comfortable with this situation. Bridge Court Bungalow DS0000000110.V323805.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 20 Conduct and Management of the Home The intended outcomes for Standards 37 – 43 are: 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. Service users benefit from a well run home. Service users benefit from the ethos, leadership and management approach of the home. Service users are confident their views underpin all self-monitoring, review and development by the home. Service users’ rights and best interests are safeguarded by the home’s policies and procedures. Service users’ rights and best interests are safeguarded by the home’s record keeping policies and procedures. The health, safety and welfare of service users are promoted and protected. Service users benefit from competent and accountable management of the service. The Commission considers Standards 37, 39, and 42 the key standards to be inspected. JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for the following standard(s): 37, 39 and 42 Quality in this outcome area is good An examination of records within the home indicates that the manager has the required qualifications and experience and is competent to run the home. The service has thorough policies and procedures and these are regularly reviewed. Discussion with staff and observation of their work showed them to be positive about their role in the home. The home has a good record of meeting relevant health and safety requirements although there are some gaps in the recording. EVIDENCE: The manager is suitably qualified for the role of manager. Whilst the manager was absent on the day of the inspection, the other staff there were competent to assist the inspector. There are a number of files containing all the relevant policies and procedures, and these were found to be recently reviewed. Bridge Court Bungalow DS0000000110.V323805.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 21 In 2006 a detailed quality assurance survey was completed by the home. It attempted to get the views of the service users and their families, and others involved in the life at Bridge Court. The findings were readily available for the inspector to view. The overwhelming opinion of Bridge Court was a positive one and there were no outstanding issues or concerns except for some larger maintenance issues, which are in hand with the organisation. Staff discussion showed a very positive approach to their work. They were all clear about their role within the house and their passion showed through in their work. One person said ‘I really, really love it’ and another agreed saying ‘I really enjoy this type of work’ The previous inspection indicated a number of requirements and these have all been carried out within the home with the exception of one, the toilet flooring which is in hand. An examination of the health and safety checks within the home showed the majority to be up to date, for example, all fire checks, the appliance testing, and the gas certificate. A report by a Food Hygiene inspector in July 2006 required no actions to be made within the home. However, some checks were not up to date; the last in-house health and safety inspection found was dated July 2006, the First Aid check was August 2006, and the weekly vehicle check had not been completed since 22nd December 2006. Bridge Court Bungalow DS0000000110.V323805.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 Adults 18-65 have been met and uses the following scale. The scale ranges from: 4 Standard Exceeded 2 Standard Almost Met (Commendable) (Minor Shortfalls) 3 Standard Met 1 Standard Not Met (No Shortfalls) (Major Shortfalls) “X” in the standard met box denotes standard not assessed on this occasion “N/A” in the standard met box denotes standard not applicable CHOICE OF HOME Standard No Score 1 X 2 3 3 X 4 X 5 X INDIVIDUAL NEEDS AND CHOICES Standard No 6 7 8 9 10 Score CONCERNS AND COMPLAINTS Standard No Score 22 3 23 2 ENVIRONMENT Standard No Score 24 3 25 X 26 X 27 X 28 X 29 X 30 3 STAFFING Standard No Score 31 X 32 3 33 X 34 3 35 3 36 1 CONDUCT AND MANAGEMENT OF THE HOME Standard No 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 Score 2 2 X 3 X LIFESTYLES Standard No Score 11 X 12 3 13 3 14 X 15 3 16 2 17 4 PERSONAL AND HEALTHCARE SUPPORT Standard No 18 19 20 21 Score 3 3 2 X 3 X 3 X X X 3 Bridge Court Bungalow DS0000000110.V323805.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 23 Are there any outstanding requirements from the last inspection? Yes 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 YA6 Regulation None Requirement The manager must ensure that individual plans including care plans and goals are reviewed in line with National Minimum standards The manager must ensure that systems are in place to record all medicines used as required (PRN) The manager must ensure that necessary repairs are carried out to: -Shower room to prevent flooding, and relocate the light switch - Toilet floor (previous timescale of 2/2/06 not met The manager must ensure that the recruitment details held in service comply with those agreed in the National Minimum Standards. The manager must ensure that all staff receive recorded supervision at least 6 times a year in accordance with the National Minimum Standard Timescale for action 30/04/07 2 YA20 13 (2) Sch 3 (3) (i) None 31/03/07 3 YA24 31/03/07 4 YA34 Sch 2 (7) 30/04/07 4 YA36 None 30/04/07 Bridge Court Bungalow DS0000000110.V323805.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 24 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 Refer to Standard YA7 YA19 YA24 Good Practice Recommendations The manager should consider devising a regular plan of activities that can be used to influence reviewing of individuals’ goals. The manager should arrange for the service users’ individual files to be reviewed and updated in accordance with National Minimum Standards. The manager should make arrangements to improve the home’s storage facilities within the house. Bridge Court Bungalow DS0000000110.V323805.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 25 Commission for Social Care Inspection Tees Valley Area Office Advance St. Marks Court Teesdale Stockton-on-Tees TS17 6QX 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 Bridge Court Bungalow DS0000000110.V323805.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!