Inspection on 13/09/05 for Brook House

This inspection was carried out on 13th September 2005.

CSCI has not published a star rating for this report, though using similar criteria we estimate that the report is Excellent. 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

Brook House 13/09/07

Brook House 27/09/06

Brook House 05/01/06

Brook House 23/11/04

Brook House 20/05/04

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 Brook House 391 Padiham Road Burnley Lancashire BB12 6SZ Lead Inspector Mrs Marie Dickinson Unannounced Inspection 15th September 2005 10:00 Brook House DS0000009467.V255865.R01.S.doc Version 5.0 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 Brook House DS0000009467.V255865.R01.S.doc Version 5.0 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. Brook House DS0000009467.V255865.R01.S.doc Version 5.0 Page 3 SERVICE INFORMATION Name of service Brook House Address 391 Padiham Road Burnley Lancashire BB12 6SZ 01282 413107 01282 835863 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) Mr Hurrylall Gungah Mrs Bibi Farida Gungah Mrs Toni Jackson Care Home 10 Category(ies) of Learning disability (9), Learning disability over registration, with number 65 years of age (1) of places Brook House DS0000009467.V255865.R01.S.doc Version 5.0 Page 4 SERVICE INFORMATION Conditions of registration: 1. 2. 3. The registered provider shall, employ a suitably qualified manager who is registered with the Commission for Social Care Inspection The LD(E) place is for a named gentleman, and the registered provdier will notify the CSCI when this person no longer resides in the home. The home must be staffed as follows: Management: 1 person on duty at all times. (Hours required per week: 105) During the day in addition to the full time manager, two carers to cover the waking hours at all times service users are in the home. During the night, an experienced carer must be employed to sleep in on the premises each night. In addition there must be, at all times another member of staff on call, in the vicinity within three minutes travelling distance. The home can accommodate a total of ten (10) service users to include up to nine (9) service users in the category of Learning Disability - LD and one Service user in the category of Learning Disability over 65 years -LD(E) 23rd November 2004 4. Date of last inspection Brief Description of the Service: Brook House is a large Victorian house, situated within a short walking distance to Burnley town centre and is keeping with other houses in the neighbourhood. The home is owned by Mr and Mrs Gungah, and managed by Toni Jackson, the registered manager. Brook House is registered to provide personal care and accommodation for ten people with a learning disability. Accommodation is in ten single bedrooms with en suite facilities. There are two lounges, dining room and kitchen combined, bathroom, toilet and a utility room. Staff have sleeping in accommodation. There are garden areas to the front and rear with parking space. Brook House DS0000009467.V255865.R01.S.doc Version 5.0 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 resident’s 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 residents was also looked at and eight residents and five relatives sent comments to the Commission. Residents were asked during inspection about their personal experiences 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 such as when to go to bed and getting up. They learned new skills. The high standard of residents healthcare plan enabled them to receive the correct support from medical professionals. Care staff had clear guidance in what each person needed. Sufficient staff were employed who were supervised in their work. Teamwork was evident and the manager worked 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 worked towards good practice in their work. Residents said the carers treated them well. One relative wrote ‘I am happy with the overall care at Brook House, both staff and accommodation’. Brook House DS0000009467.V255865.R01.S.doc Version 5.0 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 by relatives in how residents care and the home was managed. What has improved since the last inspection? What they could do better: Before anyone is admitted to the home, it must be identified the home can meet the needs of that person. To make sure residents are given the right amount of support, an agreement should be reached as to how financial funding to provide this will be given before the resident is admitted to the home. For residents to benefit proper management of risks, staff must always follow the action written in the care plan and agreed with the resident. All residents having an option to join in the homes transport scheme must sign to say this was agreed. Brook House DS0000009467.V255865.R01.S.doc Version 5.0 Page 7 To complete the process of quality reviews, and allow residents to experience having their say in decisions, a report and action plan on the results of anonymous questionnaires should be written and made available for people to read. A copy must also be sent to the Commission. Any significant event concerning residents or staff should be reported 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. Brook House DS0000009467.V255865.R01.S.doc Version 5.0 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 Outcomes Statutory Requirements Identified During the Inspection Brook House DS0000009467.V255865.R01.S.doc Version 5.0 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 the following standard(s): 2, 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 should be observed in all instances to make sure the home could offer the right care. The assessments completed contained sufficient information to write a plan of care. People living at the home had a written contract. To avoid a breakdown in care support required, no one should be admitted without a contract to agree the conditions of the placement from the local authority. EVIDENCE: There had been one new admission since the last inspection. 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 evidence in completed assessments people are visited prior to their admission. The assessments had taken into account the resident’s needs in relation to the environment, staffing levels and current residents living at the home. Staff were trained to care for people with a learning disability and worked with other professional people in caring for residents, such as psychologists and dieticians. Brook House DS0000009467.V255865.R01.S.doc Version 5.0 Page 10 Contracts in most cases were given to residents. Residents said they understood what information was written. All residents must sign any contract given to show they had agreed the terms and conditions of their stay, including the option of joining the transport scheme. There was concern however following an emergency admission, the local authority agreement to financially support this resident was not given. Additional costs were needed to give the resident a higher level of support for management of challenging behaviour. In this instance the home could not meet the residents needs. Brook House DS0000009467.V255865.R01.S.doc Version 5.0 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 the following 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. This level of support however, must be maintained for all residents. Information such as policies and procedures, staff and management meetings, helped residents to be involved in some aspects of life in the home. Confidentiality policy also 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. There was concern that staff had not kept to one resident’s agreement, which had resulted in a situation that was difficult to manage. Brook House DS0000009467.V255865.R01.S.doc Version 5.0 Page 12 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 resident’s needs were met. Residents in the home said they were pleased with their carer. They could ‘discuss things with them.’ 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. Staff should make sure the support given is the same as recorded and agreed in residents care plans. 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 their carer and the manager. They also had a ‘listen to me workbook’ to record important information about themselves. Residents said that they were involved in staff and management meetings if they wanted. 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. This however must be followed through in all instances. During the inspection it was clear staff considered confidentiality of resident information and records to be important. These records 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. Brook House DS0000009467.V255865.R01.S.doc Version 5.0 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 the following standard(s): 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17. Residents living in the home were given opportunities to live a fulfilling lifestyle at the home and in the community. This included social activities and learning new skills for personal development. Residents were helped to keep in touch with their families and friends. Residents were provided with a nutritious and varied diet. EVIDENCE: 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. The planner they used was easy to follow. Residents were given opportunities for personal development. This was seen in care plans. Resident’s views about their opportunities to take part in activities were positive. They also said they pleased themselves what activity they joined in. Some residents went to College. They learned different skills such as writing and numbers and computer skills. Whatever they did it was to their own choosing. Records of achievement were displayed in bedrooms. Brook House DS0000009467.V255865.R01.S.doc Version 5.0 Page 14 Residents were able to make full use of community facilities. The manager had negotiated residents being able to join in a mobility class in the community. This meant they had a personal trainer who advised about exercise, eating and general well-being. Residents went into the town regularly, and enjoyed family days at the home. Some resident went to church, which they enjoyed. They also had outings and were looking forward to their holiday organised by the staff. Public transport was used where possible, and residents had joined a mobility scheme in the home, which meant staff would drive them to various places. Visitors to the home were made welcome. 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 who wrote ‘we both look forward to these visits’. In addition to being aware of residents’ basic rights being included in induction training and in the staff handbook, during the course of the inspection, staff working in the home was seen to treat residents with respect. They were also 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. They said they spent time in their bedroom when they wanted and had agreed flexible times for going to bed. This was because they had to take into account having to be up early to go to College. They had their own house rules they agreed on. Residents said the food was good. They discussed ‘healthy options’ they were trying. It was to their liking. They planned their own menus and took turns to cook. Staff helped them. They also prepared pack lunches when they were going out. All the residents liked their pet cat. They had the responsibility to feed it. They enjoyed looking after it and said they ‘played with it’, when it wanted to of course. ‘It slept a lot and liked being warm’. Brook House DS0000009467.V255865.R01.S.doc Version 5.0 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 the following standard(s): 18, 19. 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. The healthcare of residents was monitored. The care plan linked to this was of a high standard. 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. This was also seen in care plans and daily records. One resident who had recovered from a stroke, had a special chair to help sit and stand when needed. This was purchased specially to help with being independent. 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. The healthcare action plan was written with the consent of the resident. They were very good. Pictures were used to Brook House DS0000009467.V255865.R01.S.doc Version 5.0 Page 16 help people understand what was being dealt with, such as eyes, teeth, breathing, feet, skin, alcohol, eating, sleeping and aggression. It also said who would help them. For people who could not say what was wrong, staff were informed of how to know that person was not well. Guidance was given in how to stay healthy. Comments received from relatives showed in cases where people are unable to make decisions about their care, they were consulted. Brook House DS0000009467.V255865.R01.S.doc Version 5.0 Page 17 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 the following standard(s): 22, 23 Residents felt their interests were protected. They were confident in the owner and staff to deal with complaints properly. Good practice in employment, safe guarded resident’s 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 the manager would listen to them. Comments received from residents said they ‘talked to their carers about matters’, sometimes as a group and also individually. The complaints procedure assured residents their ‘complaints would be taken seriously’. Comments sent to the Commission show residents ‘feel safe’ in the home. Residents also indicated which staff they would talk to if they were unhappy. One resident named the owner as being their point of call in this situation. 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. Brook House DS0000009467.V255865.R01.S.doc Version 5.0 Page 18 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 the following standard(s): 24, 25, 26, 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 lounges, dining room/ kitchen and laundry were shared. Maintenance was good and standards of hygiene were high. EVIDENCE: Brook House is a large spacious property in Burnley. Residents are accommodated in single bedrooms. There are two lounges, dining room/kitchen and laundry room. The home was decorated to a good standard and furnishings and fittings were ‘homelike’ in style and of a good quality. Since the last inspection a new dining table and chairs had been purchased. Residents made positive comments about their home. They liked it and their relatives were also pleased where they lived. One comment received at the Commission from a relative gave the opinion she was ‘happy with the overall accommodation’. The home was well maintained, and records showed that repairs were carried out promptly. Brook House DS0000009467.V255865.R01.S.doc Version 5.0 Page 19 Accommodation is offered in ten single bedrooms that benefited from having en suite facilities that included toilet and shower. Residents were happy with their bedrooms. From looking around the premises, it was obvious that residents were able to personalise their rooms. They chose the colour scheme when they were decorated and had what furniture they wanted. They said they liked having their own toilet and shower, which also helped promote their independence. In addition to this there is a communal bathroom and toilet downstairs they can also use. There is a garden area to the front and back. Residents said they had barbeques there and visitors were welcome. Parking space is also to the rear. There is a separate laundry room. Residents do their own laundry with staff helping. The washing machines had the correct programmes to make sure laundry was washed to a proper standard. The overall standard of hygiene was very good. Brook House DS0000009467.V255865.R01.S.doc Version 5.0 Page 20 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 at least once during a 12 month period. JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for the following standard(s): 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36 Good staff recruitment procedures were followed. Resident benefited from staff they liked and enjoyed their work. Staff were given opportunities for relevant training and were supervised properly. EVIDENCE: The home was fully staffed during the inspection. The current level of staffing was linked to the needs of the residents currently living at the home. All staff were clear about their roles and responsibilities. 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. They also said they ‘didn’t like it when staff left’. Information sent to the Commission showed that six staff had left and agency staff had covered shifts when needed. Two new staff member’s records employed since the last inspection were looked at. These 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. The percentage of staff trained to National Vocational Qualification in Care level two was above is 50 . There was evidence staff had induction training. Brook House DS0000009467.V255865.R01.S.doc Version 5.0 Page 21 Information sent to the Commission shows staff has received other training to help them in their career in social care, and future training had been planned. In addition to this 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. Brook House DS0000009467.V255865.R01.S.doc Version 5.0 Page 22 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 at least once during a 12 month period. JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for the following standard(s): 37, 39, 40, 41, 42 Residents and staff were generally happy with the way the home was managed. Guidance and support was given to staff. Residents had meetings and had their say, but were of the opinion they would benefit being more involved in decision-making. Teamwork was noted. The health, safety and welfare of residents, was considered on a day-to-day basis. EVIDENCE: The owner Mr Gungah was in daily contact with staff, residents and the manager in the home. A new manager had been appointed since the last inspection, recently registered with the Commission. She has relevant qualifications and many years experience working in a variety of positions in care work. She is active in training. Staff and residents said they had regular meetings and could speak to Mr Gungah on a day-to-day basis. Staff said they had the opportunity to discuss work issues on a day-to-day basis and also in supervision. They had support with training and worked to a code of conduct and practice. Brook House DS0000009467.V255865.R01.S.doc Version 5.0 Page 23 Confidential records were locked away. Residents had the benefit of up to date relevant policies and procedure. These included their ‘house rules’, which they said are discussed sometimes at meetings. Residents said their views were generally listened to and staff and the manager considered this important. Comments however received at the Commission from residents showed they would like to be more involved in decision-making. One resident felt this was provided through meetings and two said they did not want this involvement. Anonymous questionnaires were used. The views of residents and relatives from these 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 wellbeing or safety of residents, had occurred since the previous inspection, and the Commission had not been notified. Insurance cover was in place and maintenance of the property was ongoing with regular safety checks being carried out. Residents knew what to do in the event of a fire. Risk assessments for residents personal safety was also completed. Training in health and safety is also provided for staff to help them at work. All senior carers were qualified in first aid. Brook House DS0000009467.V255865.R01.S.doc Version 5.0 Page 24 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 3 2 3 2 Standard No 22 23 Score 3 3 ENVIRONMENT INDIVIDUAL NEEDS AND CHOICES Standard No 6 7 8 9 10 Score 3 2 3 2 3 Standard No 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 STAFFING Score 3 3 3 3 3 X 3 LIFESTYLES Standard No Score 11 3 12 3 13 3 14 3 15 3 16 3 17 Standard No 31 32 33 34 35 36 Score 3 3 3 3 3 3 CONDUCT AND MANAGEMENT OF THE HOME 3 PERSONAL AND HEALTHCARE SUPPORT Standard No 18 19 20 21 Brook House Score 3 4 X x Standard No 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 Score 3 X 2 3 3 2 x DS0000009467.V255865.R01.S.doc Version 5.0 Page 25 no 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 Standard 3 Regulation Requirement Timescale for action 15/09/05 2 9 3 42 14(2)(c)(d) The registered person must make sure that proper discussion takes place with the social worker and resident to make sure the needs of the resident can be met in the home by sufficient resources being made available. 13(6) The registered person shall 15/09/05 make sure residents welfare is considered where there are identified risks. 37(1) The Commission must be 15/09/05 notified immediately of any significant event concerning the care of residents. 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 Refer to Standard 5 7 Good Practice Recommendations It is recommended that the contract for joining the transport scheme be signed by all residents. It is recommended staff work to the care plan when there DS0000009467.V255865.R01.S.doc Version 5.0 Page 26 Brook House 3 39 are limitations on choice agreed for the resident’s wellbeing. It is recommended that a copy of the review of quality of care report carried out at the home be sent to the Commission. Brook House DS0000009467.V255865.R01.S.doc Version 5.0 Page 27 Commission for Social Care Inspection East Lancashire Area Office 1st Floor, 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 Brook House DS0000009467.V255865.R01.S.doc Version 5.0 Page 28 - 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!