CARE HOME ADULTS 18-65
Brook House 391 Padiham Road Burnley Lancashire BB12 6SZ Lead Inspector
Mrs Marie Dickinson Unannounced Inspection 13 & 14 September 2007 10:00
th th Brook House DS0000009467.V346219.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 Brook House DS0000009467.V346219.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. Brook House DS0000009467.V346219.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 3 SERVICE INFORMATION
Name of service Brook House Address 391 Padiham Road Burnley Lancashire BB12 6SZ 01282 413107 01282 835863 louisa@brookandglencairn.co.uk 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 Linda Smithson 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.V346219.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 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) 27th September 2006 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. 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. At the time of inspection the scale of charges was dependent on the level of need. The home has a statement of purpose and service users guide, which informs the current and prospective residents about the services and facilities available at the home. The registered person had also produced a brochure and CD. Brook House DS0000009467.V346219.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 5 SUMMARY
This is an overview of what the inspector found during the inspection. This key inspection was unannounced and conducted in respect of Brook House on the 13th and 14th September 2007. A quality assurance assessment was completed by the manager and sent to the Commission as part of this inspection process. Several written comments about the home were also received prior to the inspection from residents, and relatives of residents. The inspection involved getting information from staff records, care records and policies and procedures. It also involved talking to people living at the home, staff on duty, the manager, and the provider. The inspection included a tour of the premises. Areas that needed to improve from the previous inspection were looked at for progress made. The home was assessed against the National Minimum Standards for Younger Adults. What the service does well:
Before any person is admitted they visit the home and stay for a trial period to help them decide if they would benefit from living at the home. Admission to the home was planned giving people enough time to settle in and find out how their support would be provided. They were also given a written contract so they knew what was expected from agreeing to stay there. People living in the home were given information such as the homes policies and procedures that helped them understand for example, what to do in the event of a fire, how to keep safe and the homes ruling on smoking, alcohol and drugs. Residents considered they were cared for in a manner suitable to them. They said staff listened and acted on what they said. Written comments from relatives showed in their opinion the home met the needs of their relatives, and staff had the right skills and expertise. Comments included ‘They really care about the well-being of my son, and I feel that he could not be in a better run family home’. Residents benefited the support of a named worker, referred to as a Key worker who took responsibility to make sure care needs for individuals was personalised. Assessments linked to care plans. These included health, personal and social care needs. Healthcare was promoted and medication managed safely.
Brook House DS0000009467.V346219.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 6 The home was managed in a manner to avoid any institutional routines. Residents views about their opportunities to take part in activities was positive. This was because they did what they wanted to do. For example ‘I’m happy with being able to do what I want, see my family at home every weekend, and get to go to bed when I want’. And ‘I go out shopping or go for a meal’. A wide range of activities helped people make the most of their skills both inside and outside the home. This enabled them to be involved in the life of the home and gave them the opportunity to meet other people. Since the last inspection residents had enjoyed a holiday in Blackpool and Alcudia. Everyone spoken to said the holiday was “wonderful” and “good fun”. The homes newsletter included views about the holidays such as ‘I danced the night away’, and ‘The shows were fantastic’. There were arrangements in place to ensure residents were listened to and any concerns were acted upon. Adult protection was given a high profile with staff training and contractual arrangements to protect residents. Recruitment practices were thorough and protected residents. Residents generally had a good opinion of staff. They were ‘very good’ and helpful’. The training provided for staff was very good and the home had achieved a high level of staff trained in a National Vocational Qualification in care. Staff were regularly supervised and had meetings. Systems were in place to approach residents/relatives to give their view on the quality of services and facilities in the home. A newsletter was published for the home which residents helped to write. Residents were provided with comfortable, pleasant, clean, and wellmaintained accommodation. The home was run in their best interests that helped towards quality of life experience in the home and community being good. What has improved since the last inspection?
The service users guide had been reviewed and updated and a copy given to residents which meant they had accurate information about the services. Risk assessments and risk management strategies were regularly updated so changing needs were managed properly. Medication records were sufficiently detailed and instructions clear. The complaints procedure was updated and included into the service users guide. All records and checks for new members of staff were in accordance with the requirements of the Care Homes Regulations 2001. Brook House DS0000009467.V346219.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 7 In line with the conditions of registration a manager has been registered with the Commission. Following a monitoring and review of performance conducted by the home an annual development plan has been produced, based on a systematic cycle of planning, action and review and outcomes for the residents. Improvements had been made to the lounge, kitchen, and laundry as part of a rolling programme of maintenance and renewal. 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. Brook House DS0000009467.V346219.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 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.V346219.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 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. JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for the following standard(s): 1,2,4,5. Quality in this outcome area is good. This judgement has been made using available evidence including a visit to this service. Procedures are in place to ensure all residents are admitted in a proper manner. Assessments completed contained sufficient information to inform staff how to care for people as they needed and wanted. Residents living in the home were given a contract that protected their legal rights. EVIDENCE: A revised statement of purpose and service user guide specific to Brook House had been completed and was available for people making enquiries about the home. The aims and objectives of the service included independence, choice, inclusion, rights, dignity, fulfilment, and privacy. There had been no new admissions to the home since the last inspection. Records looked at however showed people’s needs were assessed by social workers and staff in the home prior to a placement being offered in the home. Assessments were detailed and addressed the residents’ personal, social, and healthcare needs. Written comments from residents showed they had been consulted about living at the home and had an opportunity to visit and look around. Comments
Brook House DS0000009467.V346219.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 10 included ‘my mum asked me.’ ‘‘I had a trial period here , before deciding to move in.’ ‘I came to Brook House myself’. They also commented ‘I chose to live here because my friends lived here.’ And ‘Also received leaflets with information on the home’. ‘I had a look around and talked about it’. Records kept also showed residents had been issued with a contract, which contained details of the terms and conditions of residence. Brook House DS0000009467.V346219.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 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. JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for the following standard(s): 6,7,8,9. Quality in this outcome area is good. This judgement has been made using available evidence including a visit to this service. Care plans linked with service users assessed needs. Information recorded was brief, however residents considered they received personal care according to their needs and wishes. They were involved in making decisions about their lives and supported to keep safe. EVIDENCE: The residents had been allocated a carer referred to as a key worker, who took responsibility to ensure their individual needs were met in a manner suitable to them. Residents said they had a choice in the carer they wanted to support them. Records seen showed each resident had a daily living plan and person centred plan. The care plans were written in a suitable format for both the staff and residents. Although care plans linked to service users assessment, and information clear about what the carer must do, this could be recorded in more
Brook House DS0000009467.V346219.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 12 detail to show exactly what level of support was required. For example, ‘Needs assistance with personal care, washing, cleaning teeth, showering, toilet – staff to assist.’ This does not indicate what the assistance will be. Residents spoken to however said, staff gave them all the help they need and were very happy living in the home. Written comments from relatives showed they considered the home met the needs of their relatives. Daily living plans had been reviewed once a month. It was the practice of the home to support responsible risk taking and policies and procedures supported this approach. Risk assessments and management strategies were available for staff reference. The key principles identified in the home show how people using the service are in control of their lives and direct their care. Residents had regular meetings and minutes recorded showed how their views were listened to. Residents were supported with financial management. Detailed written records were maintained of all transactions. A random check of money deposited with the home for safe keeping corresponded accurately to the records. To show how residents benefited from this support this should be included in care planning. Brook House DS0000009467.V346219.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 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. JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for the following standard(s): 11,12,13,14,1,16,17. Quality in this outcome area is good. This judgement has been made using available evidence including a visit to this service. Residents living in the home had a degree of independence, which meant they had opportunity to take part in chosen activities; were given opportunities to live a fulfilling lifestyle; access community resources, and keep in touch with families and friends. The meals provided were sufficient in providing for their tastes, choices, and diet. EVIDENCE: Residents views about their opportunities to take part in activities was positive. This was because they did what they wanted to do and what they were comfortable with, making use of community facilities such as going to day centres, to the pub or just going out for shopping. Written comments from residents showed they all considered they could do what they wanted during the day, evening and at weekend. Comment included ‘I am happy at
Brook House DS0000009467.V346219.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 14 Brook House and the way that I can decide what to do.’ And ‘They allow me to make choices and listen to my wishes.’ Care plans and care records showed residents had opportunities to maintain and develop practical life skills. These included participating in the life of the home and carried out domestic tasks linked with their abilities and interests. This included tidying bedrooms, sharing with the housework, helping in the kitchen and light domestic chores, such as dusting and vacuuming. Residents engaged in activities in the local community, which included bowling, shopping, and going out for meals. Staff provided assistance with activities as necessary and had knowledge of events in the nearby area. Drivers had been employed to support resident’s get out and about, access to colleges, day centres and visits to neighbouring town. Since the last inspection residents had been away for a holiday. One group went to Blackpool and the other group went to Alcudia. They had all chosen which holiday they went on. A video recording had been made which residents watched during inspection. Residents said the holidays were ‘good fun’ and ‘it was brilliant. We go out to lots of places.’ ‘I like to go to church’. Residents had also attended a ball. Staffing levels were reviewed at regular intervals, which enabled residents to pursue individual leisure interests. Activities were also arranged inside the home such as dominoes, karaoke and film nights. One resident enjoyed looking after the pet cat in the home. During inspection residents discussed their vocational courses arranged at college. These included cooking, information technology, literacy and numeracy, and arts and crafts. One resident worked as a volunteer at a local day centre for Older People, which she said she really enjoyed. . The residents were supported to maintain relationships with their families and staff provided support, where necessary, for instance one resident received staff support each weekend to visit her relative’s house. Residents could entertain their visitors in their bedroom if they wished. The home was managed in a manner to avoid any institutional routines. Letters were delivered unopened and observations made of staff working in the home showed they treated people living in the home with respect. All bedrooms had locks on their doors and people managed their own keys. They were also able to use their room at any time should they wish to spend some time in private. Menus showed residents were offered variety and choice. The manager said menus were changedregularly. Part of learning life skills for individuals involves planning meals, preparing snacks, food shopping and make drinks. Records need to show in more detail how budgeting skills, shopping, preparation, and cooking were managed for individual residents.
Brook House DS0000009467.V346219.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 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. JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for the following standard(s): 18,19,20. Quality in this outcome area is good. This judgement has been made using available evidence including a visit to this service. Individual preferred routines likes and dislikes allowed people to enjoy personal care in a dignified way. Their healthcare was monitored and medication policies and staff training promoted best practice and reduced the risk of errors being made. EVIDENCE: Records showed people using the service were registered with a General Practitioner and that appointments had been made and kept, appointments had also been kept with care coordinators, consultants, and community health services. Written comments from residents in the home indicate staff treat them well. The residents’ individual care plans set out the personal support each resident required and provided basic details of how this support was to be delivered. However, some aspects of the daily living plans required more detail. Residents spoken to confirmed personal support was provided in private and the residents’ rights to privacy and dignity were respected as observed during
Brook House DS0000009467.V346219.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 16 inspection. Routines were flexible and residents were encouraged to have a bath or shower as frequently as they wished. A record was also maintained of individual likes and dislikes as part of the assessment and person centred planning processes. Healthcare needs were appropriately assessed and were included in the daily living plan. A health action plan had also been completed with each resident and they had a ‘listen to me workbook,’ to support them with healthcare. Routine health screening was followed through. There was a set of policies and procedures in respect of handling medication in the home and appropriate records were maintained of the receipt, administration, and disposal of medicines. None of the residents were in receipt of controlled drugs at the time of inspection. Arrangements had been made for new staff designated to administer medication to undertake an accredited medication course. Brook House DS0000009467.V346219.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 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. JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for the following standard(s): 22, 23. Quality in this outcome area is good. This judgement has been made using available evidence including a visit to this service. The complaints procedure provided guidance on raising complaints that helped residents raise any issue or concern they may have. Policies, procedures, and training in adult protection and terms and conditions of staff employment helped to safeguard residents. EVIDENCE: Residents and relatives who sent comments to the commission stated they knew who to speak to if they were not happy and how to make a complaint. Most people said they had no complaints as such and all who joined in the inspection were confident any issue they had would be dealt with. They discussed issues every day with staff and had their own meetings and also were given opportunities to raise issues in quality assurance questionnaires. A copy of the complaints procedure was seen during the inspection. A pictorial version of the complaints procedure had also been produced and was displayed available in the hallway. The home had received two complaints since the previous inspection, which were investigated by the registered provider. Staff had a policy directing them to treat people in their care with ‘consideration, dignity, and respect. Staff on duty were familiar with adult protection procedures. There was a copy of “No Secrets in Lancashire” and a whistle-blowing procedure. There was also
Brook House DS0000009467.V346219.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 18 an internal vulnerable adults procedure. Protection issues such as wills and gifts were covered in staff terms and conditions of employment. The staff had access to a training video and an accompanying questionnaire. Brook House DS0000009467.V346219.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 19 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): 24,25,27,28,30. Quality in this outcome area is good. This judgement has been made using available evidence including a visit to this service. Brook House provided comfortable, pleasant, clean, and well-maintained accommodation. Residents were able to personalise their bedrooms and create an individual space suitable for their needs. EVIDENCE: Brook House is a Victorian building set in its own grounds. Accommodation is provided in ten single rooms, all of which have an ensuite facility. The shared space is provided in two lounges and a dining kitchen. The home is located approximately two miles from Burnley and is situated on a main public transport route. Residents thought the home was very nice. Written comments received at the Commission showed they considered the home to be always fresh and clean. ‘the home is lovely’ and ‘it is cleaned daily’.
Brook House DS0000009467.V346219.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 20 Since the last inspection the home has had the lounge re-decorated, and the kitchen re- tiled. There was a rolling programme of maintenance and there were ongoing plans to maintain and update the home such as the hall and staircase to be decorated. The furnishings and fittings were domestic in character and of a good quality throughout Residents were able to personalise their rooms according to their own tastes and preferences. Furniture provided met with their approval and bedding, carpets and curtains were coordinated to match. All the residents spoken to said they liked their rooms, and were happy to show off how nicely they kept them. Laundry facilities were sufficient organised and clean. The premises were comfortable, clean, and free from offensive odours, in all areas seen. Information received at the Commission showed relevant health and safety maintenance of equipment had been carried out. The manager said they were due to have an inspection by the health and safety executive this year. Brook House DS0000009467.V346219.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 21 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): 32,33,34,35,36. Quality in this outcome area is good. This judgement has been made using available evidence including a visit to this service. Good recruitment and selection procedures, training, and effective supervision given to staff meant residents were protected and their needs were effectively met. EVIDENCE: The staff handbook provided staff with a code of conduct and practice. Job descriptions were linked to meeting the needs of the residents and since the last inspection two drivers had been appointed to join the team. Relatives, who sent written comments for the inspection, considered the care staff had the right skills and experience to look after people properly. They also considered the service met the needs of people such as race, ethnicity, disability, gender, faith and sexual orientation. Information from the manager prior to this inspection showed there had been a high turnover of staff over the past twelve months. Residents said ‘The staff
Brook House DS0000009467.V346219.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 22 were alright, but they keep leaving’ and ‘you get used to them and then they go’. They considered staff working in the home to be ‘very good’ and helpful’. Records showed that good recruitment practice had been followed, which met with legislative requirements, equal opportunities, and promoted anti discriminatory practice. Residents were not directly involved in the interview process. The manager said part of staff selection is for the applicant to spend time in the home with them, and be observed. Plans were currently been made for residents to be involved in the process and they had put forward suggestions of what they might like to ask during interviews. All new employees were given in house induction training. This was covered over a six week period and covered topics such as fire procedure, fire awareness, abuse policies, and awareness, and person centred planning. Staffs had an individual training and development assessment profile and were given opportunities to attend various training courses associated with the needs of the residents. At the time of the inspection 95 had completed National Vocational Qualification in care level 2 or above. Staff meetings were held on a regular basis. The meetings gave the opportunity to staff to share experiences and develop teamwork. The manager had established a programme to ensure staff received supervision and had an annual appraisal of their work performance. Supervision included; review of work performance, future work targets, training, support, and development. Brook House DS0000009467.V346219.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 23 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): 37,38,39,42. Quality in this outcome area is good. This judgement has been made using available evidence including a visit to this service. The home was run in the best interests of residents and protected their health, safety, and welfare. This helped towards resident’s quality of life experience in the home and community being good. EVIDENCE: Since the last inspection, the new manager had registered with the Commission. Information from the management prior to inspection indicated a pro-active approach to improving services. This was done by listening to residents and staff and re-structured the staffing arrangement by ‘creating a new position of deputy manager’. The manager has ten years experience working in various residential settings, and has direct supervision from the provider.
Brook House DS0000009467.V346219.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 24 The manager said she was improving and developing systems that monitor practice and compliance with policies and procedures of the home such as regular supervision of staff. The management approach was consultative and there were systems in place to consult both staff and residents. Relationships within the home were positive, residents were relaxed in staff company, and staff spoke about the residents with respect. Residents who sent written comments about ‘what the home did well’ stated ‘I love everyone’. ‘I am very happy at Brook House. I get on well with the service users and also the staff ‘. ‘I like living at Brook House’. Relatives also commented ‘They really care about the well-being of my son, and I feel that he could not be in a better run family home.’ And ‘My brother has been in several homes since leaving full time hospital care. Non have been in any way as well run and caring as Brookhouse. All our family are extremely happy with the care he is now getting. There is a noticeable improvement in his overall wellbeing.’ Staff meetings were held regularly and the staff had opportunities to express any issues or concerns they might have. These were noted. Issues such as unpaid breaks and the no smoking policy were discussed. The home was awarded post recognition Investors in People in 2005. Satisfaction surveys had been distributed to the residents and their relative during 2006/07 and as a result an annual development plan had been written. The manager had produced a newsletter for the home. It was very good and included articles from residents Comments about their holiday included ‘I danced the night away’, and ‘The shows were fantastic’. One resident intends to have his ‘story’ written in the newsletter. Staff had received health and safety training, which included moving and handling, food hygiene, and fire safety. However, the number of staff trained in first aid must be increased to support them in their work, particularly as there are occasions when they work alone. Information received at the Commission from the manager for the inspection, and documents seen during the visit, indicated that the gas and electrical systems were serviced at regular intervals and the home had a valid electrical safety certificate. The fire log showed regular fire alarm tests were carried out and the staff had received instructions about the fire safety procedures. To minimise the risk of scalding preset valves were fitted on every water outlet and the water temperature was tested on a regular basis. Arrangements had been made to store hazardous substances in a secure location. Health and safety checks were carried out on the environment on a monthly basis and risk assessments had been completed on safe working topics. Brook House DS0000009467.V346219.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 25 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 3 2 3 3 X 4 3 5 3 INDIVIDUAL NEEDS AND CHOICES Standard No 6 7 8 9 10 Score CONCERNS AND COMPLAINTS Standard No Score 22 3 23 3 ENVIRONMENT Standard No Score 24 3 25 3 26 X 27 3 28 3 29 X 30 3 STAFFING Standard No Score 31 X 32 3 33 2 34 3 35 3 36 3 CONDUCT AND MANAGEMENT OF THE HOME Standard No 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 Score 2 2 3 3 X LIFESTYLES Standard No Score 11 2 12 3 13 3 14 3 15 3 16 3 17 3 PERSONAL AND HEALTHCARE SUPPORT Standard No 18 19 20 21 Score 3 3 3 X 3 3 3 X X 3 X Brook House DS0000009467.V346219.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 26 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 15 Requirement Care plans must provide detailed guidance for staff on how best to meet the residents’ needs. Previous timescale of 30/11/06 not met. There must be a qualified first aider on duty at all times. Previous timescale of 30/11/06 not met. Timescale for action 30/11/07 2 YA42 13 (4) 30/11/07 RECOMMENDATIONS These recommendations relate to National Minimum Standards and are seen as good practice for the Registered Provider/s to consider carrying out. No. 1 Refer to Standard YA7 Good Practice Recommendations All financial support needed for residents such as saving and support with daily expenditure, should be recorded in their care plans, and outline the type and level of support given and agreed. Care plans should be clearer in showing how practical life skills are developed such as shopping, preparation of food, and cooking. The high level of staff turnover should be investigated and measures taken to ensure residents are cared for by regular staff they know and trust.
DS0000009467.V346219.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 27 2. 3 YA11 YA33 Brook House Commission for Social Care Inspection Lancashire Area Office Unit 1 Tustin Court Portway Preston PR2 2YQ 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 Brook House DS0000009467.V346219.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 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!
