Inspection on 07/03/07 for Broadlands Residential Home

This inspection was carried out on 7th March 2007.

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

The inspector made no statutory requirements on the home as a result of this inspection and there were no outstanding actions from the previous inspection report.

Other inspections for this house

Broadlands Residential Home 09/01/08

Broadlands Residential Home 28/12/05

Broadlands Residential Home 08/06/05

Broadlands Residential Home 10/11/04

Broadlands Residential Home 23/06/04

Broadlands Residential Home 05/12/03

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 Broadlands Residential Home Borrow Road Oulton Broad Lowestoft Suffolk NR32 3PW Lead Inspector John Goodship Key Unannounced Inspection 7th March 2007 9:50 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 DS0000024346.V332038.R02.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. DS0000024346.V332038.R02.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 3 SERVICE INFORMATION Name of service Broadlands Residential Home Address Borrow Road Oulton Broad Lowestoft Suffolk NR32 3PW 01502 512895 01502 517177 broadlands@greensleeves.org.uk www.greensleeves.org.uk Greensleeves Homes Trust Telephone number Fax number Email address Provider Web address Name of registered provider(s)/company (if applicable) Name of registered manager (if applicable) Type of registration No. of places registered (if applicable) Mrs Ann Elizabeth Maas Care Home 41 Category(ies) of Dementia - over 65 years of age (1), Old age, registration, with number not falling within any other category (41) of places DS0000024346.V332038.R02.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 4 SERVICE INFORMATION Conditions of registration: 1. One person, whose name was made known to the Commission for Social Care Inspection in June 2005, who requires care by reason of dementia. 28th December 2005 Date of last inspection Brief Description of the Service: The stated aim of Broadlands is to provide comfort and companionship in a supportive environment to those older people who require a level of care that is unavailable to them in their own homes. The building comprises a large house, which has been extended, resting on the edge of Oulton Broad, thus offering service users wonderful views over the water. The Homes attractive gardens lead down to the water where there is a jetty to moor boats. The Home offers accommodation for 41 older people, over three floors, all of which can be accessed by passenger lift and the standard of décor and maintenance at the Home was seen to be very good. The current range of fees charged by the home is £331.00 to £575.00 per week. DS0000024346.V332038.R02.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 5 SUMMARY This is an overview of what the inspector found during the inspection. This inspection visit was unannounced and covered the key standards which are listed under each Outcome Group overleaf. This report includes evidence gathered during the visit together with information already held by the Commission. The inspection took place on a weekday and lasted five and a half hours. The assistant manager was present throughout, together with staff on the morning shift and, later, those on the late shift. The inspector toured the home, and spoke to some of the residents, and interviewed one member of staff. The inspector also examined care plans, staff records, maintenance records and training records. A questionnaire survey was sent out by the Commission to residents and to relatives prior to the visit. Nineteen residents responded and twenty six relatives. Their answers to the questions and any additional comments have been included in the appropriate sections of this report. What the service does well: The home offers residents a comfortable and well-maintained environment, which compliments a warm, hospitable and dignified atmosphere. Staff are friendly and well trained. Many comments were made by residents and relatives about their care and kindness. “Excellent care and very attentive care workers who work very hard to make sure my relative’s needs are met and that they are settled and made to feel included and valued.” “My relative is aware of their keyworker and is well informed who to talk to. All staff are very approachable.” Care Plans are detailed and correctly maintained. They are clearly laid out, easy to complete and quick to refer to. Relatives are welcomed and involved in the day-to-day activity of the home. The Friends of Broadlands help to improve facilities and provide services to residents. Cooking and presentation of meals was seen to be of a very high standard with a choice of dishes available each day. Any comments by residents about the catering are actioned quickly. Staff induction and on going training is comprehensive, well-documented and encourages high standards. DS0000024346.V332038.R02.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 6 The building has been carefully extended over the years and the rooms are well decorated, well furnished and with interesting views. The home is well regulated by the Trust which owns it, with comprehensive quality assurance measures to maintain and improve the home. Relatives commented: “I think the home and the care are very good. I am pleased my relative is staying with them.” “We have been delighted with Broadlands. The girls are super and the care great. We are very lucky to have our relative staying there. I could not wish for better care for them.” What has improved since the last inspection? What they could do better: Please contact the provider for advice of actions taken in response to this inspection. The report of this inspection is available from enquiries@csci.gsi.gov.uk or by contacting your local CSCI office. The summary of this inspection report can be made available in other formats on request. DS0000024346.V332038.R02.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 7 DETAILS OF INSPECTOR FINDINGS CONTENTS Choice of Home (Standards 1–6) Health and Personal Care (Standards 7-11) Daily Life and Social Activities (Standards 12-15) Complaints and Protection (Standards 16-18) Environment (Standards 19-26) Staffing (Standards 27-30) Management and Administration (Standards 31-38) Scoring of Outcomes Statutory Requirements Identified During the Inspection DS0000024346.V332038.R02.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 8 Choice of Home The intended outcomes for Standards 1 – 6 are: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Prospective service users have the information they need to make an informed choice about where to live. Each service user has a written contract/ statement of terms and conditions with the home. No service user moves into the home without having had his/her needs assessed and been assured that these will be met. Service users and their representatives know that the home they enter will meet their needs. Prospective service users and their relatives and friends have an opportunity to visit and assess the quality, facilities and suitability of the home. Service users assessed and referred solely for intermediate care are helped to maximise their independence and return home. The Commission considers Standards 3 and 6 the key standards to be inspected. JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for the following standard(s): 1,2,3,4,5. Standard 6 is not relevant to this home. Quality in this outcome area is good. Prospective residents will be able to have full and attractively presented information on the home to enable them to decide if they wish to live there. Pre-admission assessments ensure that their needs are identified and that the home is able to meet them. Prospective residents and their relatives are able to visit the home to assess its suitability before deciding to move in. This judgement has been made using available evidence including a visit to this service. EVIDENCE: The Statement of Purpose contained all the items of information required by the Regulations. It had been updated to remove the named residents needing care by reason of dementia following their deaths. The Certificate is being reDS0000024346.V332038.R02.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 9 issued to reflect this. The Service Users’ Guide was also complete, and included a copy of the contract, called the accommodation and service agreement. Fee information was also included. There was a notice in the foyer which also set out the fees for each type of room. A relative said that it was all clear and easy to read and well laid out. The Service Agreement confirmed that there would be a trial period of six weeks from the start of each new admission. A relative reported that they had “been given a guided tour with all information given to us verbally. Staff were very helpful and sensitive to my relative’s situation with the recent loss of their partner.” A resident confirmed that they had had a trial period in the home being deciding they wished to stay. Pre-admission assessments were seen in the sample of care plans examined. The information was sufficient to form the basis for the initial care plan. The assessments were signed by the new resident. DS0000024346.V332038.R02.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 10 Health and Personal Care The intended outcomes for Standards 7 – 11 are: 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. The service user’s health, personal and social care needs are set out in an individual plan of care. Service users’ health care needs are fully met. Service users, where appropriate, are responsible for their own medication, and are protected by the home’s policies and procedures for dealing with medicines. Service users feel they are treated with respect and their right to privacy is upheld. Service users are assured that at the time of their death, staff will treat them and their family with care, sensitivity and respect. The Commission considers Standards 7, 8, 9 and 10 the key standards to be inspected. JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for the following standard(s): 7,8,9,10,11. Quality in this outcome area is good. Residents can be assured that their health, personal and social care needs are set out in an individual care plan. They are able to contribute to the development and review of their care plans, with their views and needs taken into account, to ensure they receive the appropriate personal, health, and social care. This judgement has been made using available evidence including a visit to this service. EVIDENCE: Three care plans were examined for residents who had been admitted to the home in the last twelve months. All care plans follow the format of the provider which was based on work done partly at Broadlands. They are clearly laid out, with colour coding for alerting staff to changes in needs and to other specific dangers eg allergy to penicillin. They were straightforward to complete and to read. There was a sheet for staff to sign that they had read the file. DS0000024346.V332038.R02.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 11 All plans were signed by the resident. Care plans were reviewed monthly with space for residents’ comments. All plans identified by which name residents wished to be called. A member of staff said that most people agreed to be called by their first name. One resident commented in their questionnaire “having lived a life in authority to be called Darling by all and sundry comes as a shock”. None of the staff was heard using this familiar term during the inspection, but the assistant manager said she would raise it at the next staff meeting. Files described the wishes of each person about the arrangements when they died. One resident had signed that they wished their body to be donated for medical research. All plans identified personal and health care needs, including management of diabetes with instruction from the district nurse, clear instructions for staff in caring for an amputee, preferred daily routine such as getting up times, food preferences, and management of a resident with a catheter. Visits by medical professionals were recorded, such as the chiropodist, the speech therapist for swallowing difficulties after a stroke, and district nurse for dressings. All plans contained personal risk assessments, several for risk of falls. Risk reduction strategies included half-hourly checks when the resident was in their room, moving furniture to give clear routes to the toilet, encouragement to use walking aids. Records showed that risk assessments were reviewed six monthly unless there was a reason to do so sooner. One resident returned from hospital during the morning of the inspection following a fall in their room earlier that day. No injury was found by the hospital. The incident was already described in the care plan daily report. A relative commented that “staff always call the GP when required and deal swiftly with any medical problems”. A resident said that: “While ill last week, I received excellent care”. Another relative said that “There is excellent care and very attentive care workers who work very hard to make sure my relative’s needs are met and that they are settled and made to feel included and valued.” A review of medication procedures and practices was undertaken. The temperature in the drug room was checked daily and recorded. It was consistently below the maximum recommended. Controlled drugs (CD) were checked against the CD book. The amounts in the book and in the CD cabinet tallied. The home’s policy required two signatures for CDs, including Temazepam. The Medicine Administration Record (MAR) sheets were examined. All administrations were signed for appropriately. It was observed during the lunchtime round that drugs were seen to have been taken before the sheets were signed. The assistant manager conducted a regular audit of the medication practice. This was recorded on the MAR sheets. DS0000024346.V332038.R02.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 12 DS0000024346.V332038.R02.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 13 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. The home makes every effort to meet the different preferences of each resident for stimulating as well as relaxing activities. The home has good links with the local community and has its own Friends group to provide extra activities and services. Meal choice is good, with a continually varied menu. This judgement has been made using available evidence including a visit to this service. EVIDENCE: The home has an active ‘Friends of Broadlands’ group which is made up of relatives and which provides voluntary support and activities within the home. The chairman, who was visiting the home at the time, explained their latest project which was to rebuild the jetty and garden to provide a safe and wheelchair accessible route for residents’ enjoyment. DS0000024346.V332038.R02.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 14 The lunch menu consisted of roast turkey, or minced beef patty (with homemade pastry), Broccoli Bake, or salad. The vegetables came from the home’s own garden. There was lemon surprise pudding, or fruit and ice cream for dessert. Tea was taken from 5.30pm, consisting of cheese omelette, marmite toast and sandwiches, with chocolate ice cream, cakes and yoghurt. Resident’s lunchtime was seen to be a calm and social occasion with staff interacting with residents in a supportive and unobtrusive manner. For those residents who chose not to join in the dining room, their meal was taken to them and served on an individual tray with the meal conveyed with plate covers. A Mother’s Day lunch was advertised in the reception for relatives. The manager was expecting quite a few to come for lunch. One resident was seen to receive individual assistance to manage eating their meal. Puddings were displayed attractively in a chilled cabinet for residents to see prior to making their personal selection. Residents’ comments on the catering were generally very appreciative. “I am on a special diet and the cooks try their very best to comply with it.” “There is a good variety and choice, four choices for the main meal.” A comment about the under-cooking of vegetables and the need for additional flavourings had been raised at a recent residents’ meeting, and the comments passed to the cooks. There was information in each care plan for stating the wishes of the resident regarding religious observance. A communion service was taking place during the morning in the conservatory. Three residents attended. A chart on the noticeboard listed some of the activities happening that week. Hand massages, computer courses, exercise classes and minibus trips were advertised. The home owned a minibus which a volunteer driver took out either for group trips or for individual visits. 4 residents went to Southwold on the afternoon of the inspection. One resident liked to play the piano in the recreation room. Comments from residents in the questionnaire about activities were mostly positive. One wrote: “There are plenty of activities. I join in the ones I’m able to.” Another said: “I enjoy listening to the musical entertainment, especially the children. The staff work hard to bring in interesting pursuits.” Another wrote that: “Activities are sometimes cancelled because staff are overstretched causing some frustration.” The manager was unable to find an example of this, although activities might be cancelled because of lack of interest, or because the visiting organiser was unable to come that day. One resident who was a skilled artist had been asked to do some paintings for the Greensleeves Homes Trust calendar. This resident had also devised a board DS0000024346.V332038.R02.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 15 game for the home which had been well received. It was to be tried out in other of the Trust’s homes. DS0000024346.V332038.R02.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 16 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. Residents can be assured that their views will be listened to, taken seriously and acted upon. There is a proper policy, procedure and training programme in place to give residents confidence that they are protected from abuse. This judgement has been made using available evidence including a visit to this service. EVIDENCE: The home had a Suggestions, comments and complaints policy, copies of which were displayed in reception. All required information was present. The complaints log showed that no complaints had been received by the home since the previous inspection. The home’s policy and procedure on the protection of vulnerable adults (POVA) was comprehensive, including the Suffolk Joint Agency protocol on reporting. Recruitment records showed that the appropriate checks were made before employment, and training records evidenced that staff received POVA training at induction and annually. One member of staff was able to give the inspector good examples of abuse, and was aware of the action to be taken. DS0000024346.V332038.R02.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 17 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): 19,20,24,25,26. Quality in this outcome area is good. Residents and relatives can be assured that the home provides a comfortable and well-maintained environment and that they are able to personalise their rooms should they wish to do so. Residents and relatives can be assured that the home is clean and odour free. This judgement has been made using available evidence including a visit to this service. EVIDENCE: The standard of the environment at the Home, including its decor and fabric, remained high. The grounds were well maintained and overlooked the Broad. DS0000024346.V332038.R02.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 18 Service user rooms were properly furnished. Many service users had brought in items of their own furniture, and had personalised their rooms in other ways. There were pictures depicting local historical interest throughout the home. All areas of the home including WCs, bathrooms and a selection of resident’s own rooms were seen to be cleaned to a high standard and were pleasant smelling. A relative commented: “X’s room is always kept fresh and clean. Staff work hard to make X feel tidy and organised in his room.” The temperature of the hot water outlet in one bath was tested. It measured 42°C; at this temperature, the water would be safe for the residents. The door to the laundry was found propped open with a large detergent container. Inside on the floor was a five litre container of bleach. This presented a potential hazard. As soon as the assistant manager was told about it, the room was secured. DS0000024346.V332038.R02.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 19 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. Residents are cared for by well trained staff, whose care and concern is appreciated by residents. Residents can expect that the home’s policy on recruitment is in place to protect them. This judgement has been made using available evidence including a visit to this service. EVIDENCE: No agency staff were used by the home. Gaps in the rota were always filled from within using existing staff and relief staff. Five staff were rostered to be on duty throughout the daytime. This was appropriate for the current care needs of the residents. The recruitment files for three new members of staff were examined. These contained evidence of identification as well as pre-employment protection checks. Application forms were complete with no unexplained gaps, and references were taken up. The files held information on the induction and other training which the person had done since employment, together with DS0000024346.V332038.R02.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 20 certificates confirming attendance. Files also held records of supervision sessions. All senior carers and fifteen carers had achieved NVQ Level 3 and four staff were studying for this level. Six staff had obtained NVQ Level 4. The assistant manager said that no staff study for Level 2, they went straight to Level 3. Discussion with a carer confirmed that they had Level 3, had recently finished a health and safety unit, and received moving and handling updates every two years. They also had the MIDAS certificate entitling them to drive and load a wheelchair accessible minibus. Observations of staff interacting with residents confirmed comments made by residents in the questionnaire. .“The staff are always pleasant and approachable. I am lucky to be in such a caring place.” “Staff are always helpful and polite. The atmosphere emanating from the staff makes this a happy place.” DS0000024346.V332038.R02.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 21 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): 31,33,35,36,38. Quality in this outcome area is good. The cheerful atmosphere in the home shows that the manager and staff are giving residents the support they need. This is backed up by formal ways of listening to residents’ views on how the home could be improved, and other quality assurance procedures to maintain the quality of care. This judgement has been made using available evidence including a visit to this service. EVIDENCE: DS0000024346.V332038.R02.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 22 The manager was very experienced in the care of older people. She had been the registered manager at the home since 1999, and also fulfilled a wider role for the Trust with their local homes. The provider had a Quality Assurance manual which contained the home’s policies and procedures. Staff signed to confirm that they had read them. Residents’ meetings were advertised and held regularly. They took the form of a table by table discussion, where residents were in small groups around tables and staff moved around asking them for any issues or comments. It was felt that this was a better way of encouraging residents to express their opinions. Some topics at the recent meeting included the under-cooking of vegetables, and the tea on the trolley getting cold by the time it got upstairs. The manager stated that both issues had now been corrected. Staff meetings for care staff were held every three months, meetings with Senior Carers every two months, and managers met every month. The quality manual included evidence of a number of quality audits, such as medication, health and safety, and housekeeping, as well as records of hot water checks and checks on commodes and wheeled equipment. The local Fire Officer had visited the home in July 2006. No action was required. The fire log contained records of fire training, equipment tests and alarm tests. The Fire Risk Assessment had been compiled by a professional fire assessor in June 2006. The home was inspected by the local Environmental Health Officer in July 2006. Although the report said that the documentation for “Safer food, Better business” needed further development, very high standards were observed in all food rooms and practices. The accident book was seen. There were no unusual incidents or any repeated incidents for any particular resident. There was a helpful analysis of accidents and incidents by name for 2006. The front door was open during the daytime when there was a receptionist on duty. It was then locked. One relative had commented in their questionnaire that the front door was sometimes not locked until sometime after the reception had closed, giving rise to security concerns. The assistant manager agreed to check this urgently. The home’s insurance certificate was in date and displayed in reception. The home’s records were seen to be up-to-date, accurate and secure, with evidence of residents contributing to their care records. DS0000024346.V332038.R02.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 23 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 3 3 3 3 X HEALTH AND PERSONAL CARE Standard No Score 7 4 8 3 9 3 10 3 11 3 DAILY LIFE AND SOCIAL ACTIVITIES Standard No Score 12 3 13 3 14 3 15 3 COMPLAINTS AND PROTECTION Standard No Score 16 3 17 X 18 3 2 3 X X X 3 3 3 STAFFING Standard No Score 27 3 28 3 29 3 30 4 MANAGEMENT AND ADMINISTRATION Standard No 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 Score 3 X 3 X 3 3 3 2 DS0000024346.V332038.R02.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 24 Are there any outstanding requirements from the last inspection? NO STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS This section sets out the actions, which must be taken so that the registered person/s meets the Care Standards Act 2000, Care Homes Regulations 2001 and the National Minimum Standards. The Registered Provider(s) must comply with the given timescales. No. 1. Standard OP19 OP38 Regulation 12(1)(a) Requirement Rooms containing hazardous substances must be kept locked. Timescale for action 07/03/07 RECOMMENDATIONS These recommendations relate to National Minimum Standards and are seen as good practice for the Registered Provider/s to consider carrying out. No. Refer to Standard Good Practice Recommendations DS0000024346.V332038.R02.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 25 Commission for Social Care Inspection Suffolk Area Office St Vincent House Cutler Street Ipswich Suffolk IP1 1UQ 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 DS0000024346.V332038.R02.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!