Inspection on 01/11/07 for Bushmead Court

This inspection was carried out on 1st November 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

Bushmead Court 20/09/06

Bushmead Court 10/11/05

Bushmead Court 31/05/05

Bushmead Court 11/10/04

Bushmead Court 14/05/04

Similar services:

Claremont House

Oak Ridge

Sun Court Nursing Home

Ashville House

Bramley Avenue (73)

Bilney Hall

Hill Barn

Mabbs Hall Nursing Home

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

CARE HOMES FOR OLDER PEOPLE Bushmead Court 58/60 Bushmead Avenue Bedford Bedfordshire MK40 3QW Lead Inspector Sally Snelson Unannounced Inspection 10:30 1 November 2007 st 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 Bushmead Court DS0000014995.V349099.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 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. Bushmead Court DS0000014995.V349099.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 3 SERVICE INFORMATION Name of service Bushmead Court Address 58/60 Bushmead Avenue Bedford Bedfordshire MK40 3QW 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) 01234 353884 no email as at 28.6.7 Calsan Limited vacant Care Home 27 Category(ies) of Dementia - over 65 years of age (27), Old age, registration, with number not falling within any other category (27), of places Physical disability over 65 years of age (27) Bushmead Court DS0000014995.V349099.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 4 SERVICE INFORMATION Conditions of registration: Date of last inspection 20th September 2006 Brief Description of the Service: Located in a quiet residential street, close to city centre and other local amenities, this grade II building provides environmentally pleasant accommodation for residents. The home generally caters for elderly frail people, but has developed the service so that residents with dementia are now cared for as well. There are twenty-three single and three double bedrooms on two floors, and twenty rooms have en-suite facilities. There are three bathrooms, and a shower room. High ceilings, domestic furniture with a few antique pieces creates an environment enjoyed by residents. The garden offers a combination of paved patio area and beautifully maintained grassed area with flowerbeds, and easy access from the large, new all weather conservatory. There is space for some parking at the home. The home makes CSCI inspection reports available to residents and families on request. Any prospective service users and or their representatives are sent information about the home before they make a decision to move in. Fees at this home are summarised as follows: (This information was obtained from the home during the inspection.) Between £436.00 and £560.00 depending on room and care needs. Items not covered by fees are hairdressing (for example £7 wash and set), private chiropody (£10), manicures (start at £7) and toiletteries. Bushmead Court DS0000014995.V349099.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 5 SUMMARY This is an overview of what the inspector found during the inspection. This inspection was carried out in accordance with the Commission for Social Care Inspection’s (CSCI) policy and methodologies, which require review of the key standards for the provision of a care home for older people that takes account of service users’ views and information received about the service since the last inspection. Information from the home, through written evidence in the form of an Annual Quality Assurance Assessment (AQAA) has also been used to assess the outcomes within each standard. Evidence used and judgements made within the main body of the report include information from this visit. The inspection of Bushmead Court was a key inspection, was unannounced and took place from 10.30am on 1st November 2007. The manager, Vivien Stone, was present throughout. At the time of the inspection the manager had completed the process to become the registered manager and was awaiting the outcome. Feedback was given throughout the inspection. During the inspection the care of three people who used the service was case tracked. This involved reading their records and comparing what was documented to what was provided. In addition to sampling files, people who lived at the home, staff and visitors were spoken to and their opinions sought. Any comments received from staff or service users about their views of the home plus all the information gathered on the day was used to form a judgement about the service. Prior to the inspection two service user comment cards had been received. The inspector would like to thank all those involved in the inspection for their input and support. What the service does well: Bushmead Court is spacious accommodation decorated to a high standard. Bushmead Court DS0000014995.V349099.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 6 From comments made by the residents it was apparent that if they could not live in their own homes Bushmead Court was an acceptable alternative to them. The well established staff team was an indicator that staff were happy working at the home. Documentation was neat and well recoded and ensured that the people living at Bushmead Court received the care they needed by staff who had received a wide range of training. 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. Bushmead Court DS0000014995.V349099.R01.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 Bushmead Court DS0000014995.V349099.R01.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): 1,2,3,4,6 Quality in this outcome area is adequate. This judgement has been made using available evidence including a visit to this service. Prior to being admitted to Bushmead Court people were assessed to ensure that the staff team had the correct training and skills to look after them and make their stay comfortable. EVIDENCE: On the whole information provided to prospective service users and their families was very detailed and could be produced in large print, if requested. We suggested that there was maybe too much detail in the service users guide for some service users. This was because it was a large document that was combined with the Statement of Purpose and made a number of references to regulation, which may not be meaningful to all service users. However the manager stated that this had not been identified by anyone as a problem. On Bushmead Court DS0000014995.V349099.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 9 the other hand the detail in the statement of purpose about the type of care provided needed to be more specific. For example, the statement of purpose suggested that the home could care for people with mental health problems, when in fact the registration did not cover this. The manager confirmed it was people with secondary conditions such as dementia or depression that could be accommodated. Although the Statement of Purpose stated it was written taking into account the revised regulations (5), the documents did not detail sufficient information about fees. The certificate displayed in the home had not been updated since 2002, so did not reflect the change of manager. Once the managers registration process had been completed a new certificate would automatically be sent, but in the future the provider and the manager must ensure that the certificate displayed in the home is current and up-to-date. During the inspection we were aware of two enquiries to the home about possible vacancies. The manager spoke to the relatives concerned and offered them a visit and to assess the prospective person. The manger was definite about the procedure, although one set of relatives would have liked their loved one admitted immediately and were prepared to drive them to the home from the hospital. One of the three service users whose care was tracked had been recently admitted to the home and it was clear that he had been assessed prior to admission. The other two had admission assessments, but as one dated back to 1993 it was written in less detail than expected now. All of the resident had d contracts which included information about the terms and conditions of the provided care and accommodation. The contract included details about a trial period of four weeks when a person initially moved into the home and the homes complaints procedure. Contracts had been signed and were stored separately to the care files. There was evidence that the staff team had had the necessary training to support the conditions of the service users living at the home----see staffing section of this report. The home offered respite, but not immediate care. Bushmead Court DS0000014995.V349099.R01.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 Quality in this outcome area is good. This judgement has been made using available evidence including a visit to this service. Care plans had been written in sufficient detail to ensure that the staff team were aware of the needs of the people living at Bushmead Court. This ensured that correct, consistent care was provided. EVIDENCE: The care plans were neat and tidy and available to the care staff. It was apparent that staff were continuing to improve care planning documentation and including more detail in the action and goal section of the plans. The three files sampled had care plans written for all the necessary aspects of daily living, even where the person was independent and staff had to offer only minimal support. All care plans had been reviewed monthly and a Bushmead Court DS0000014995.V349099.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 11 meaningful evaluation written. To ensure that the care plans are useful tools for all staff, particularly those who are new, front pages should be changed when needs change, as not everyone has the time to read through all the evaluations and maybe misled by what they have read. Where possible, care plans had been agreed by the service user and/or their families. The home had very good links with health services and retained a GP to visit weekly in addition to people being taken to, and GP’s visiting, as and when necessary. The home also had regularly visits from community nurses and specialist nurses such as the Parkinson’s nurse who had also provided some useful training for the staff. Where necessary health assessments, such as dependency levels or the risk of developing pressure sores were recorded and it was apparent that these results were acted upon. For example a pressure-relieving mattress had been secured for a person at risk of developing pressure areas and the community nurses informed and used to provide advice and support. Where fluid charts and turn charts were needed these had been well-kept and included sufficient detail. Healthcare was respected and people were supported to attend hospital appointments and other routine assessments such as optical and dental visits. A chiropodist was a regular visitor to the home. All the people living at Bushmead court were weighed monthly and appropriate referrals made to GP’s and dieticians if necessary. The Medication Administration Record (MAR) sheets of the people whose care was tracked were looked at in detail. It was clear that medications were being ordered, signed into the home, administered, stored and disposed of correctly. The supplying pharmacy had recently been changed by the home and the manager reported being satisfied with the support offered. One of the people case tracked had been self medicating some of their medication until recently when their health had deteriorated and they had asked staff to resume the responsibility. The manager stated that another person who needed regular blood tests and had their doses of medication altered according to the test results also took responsibility for this. Only those staff who had been trained to administer medication did so, and the records were neatly kept. We were concerned that where a medication had originally been prescribed to be given ‘as necessary’ the MAR record had it recorded as being needed 4 times a day and by not giving it, and not signing to state it had been offered and refused when it was not required it looked as though staff were not adhering to medical instructions. It was established this was a printing error and the manager agreed to source the necessary help immediately. Bushmead Court DS0000014995.V349099.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 12 Throughout the inspection people were observed being treated with dignity and respect. Staff made conversation with people when providing care and when going about other tasks. There was a natural rapport between the people living and working in the home, which made it feel like an extended family situation. Bushmead Court DS0000014995.V349099.R01.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 adequate. This judgement has been made using available evidence including a visit to this service. Some activities were provided but there were still long periods of the day when people had little to stimulate them, meaning that for some, the time was long. EVIDENCE: Care files included details about the person’s previous life, including the types of activities they enjoyed. An effort was made to try and occupy people, however some residents reported that there were still times during the day that were long and without much stimulation. One resident who was looking out of the window said, “there is nothing much to do, but there would not be anymore to do if I was at home, except I would know the people going by”. The Statement of Purpose confirmed that visitors were welcome at any time, but were encouraged to make arrangements if they wished to visit particularly early or late in the day, or to stay for a meal. Bushmead Court DS0000014995.V349099.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 14 During the inspection we noted that visitors could meet with their relatives/friends in the communal areas of the home, or in the persons own bedroom. Visitors were made a drink by the staff and could take their relative out if they wished. Visitors had been invited to a masquerade ball and chocolate party at the weekend after the inspection. The manager reported that whenever possible relatives and friends were included in activities. In addition to a weekly activity co-ordinators visit, the home received regular visits from two church groups and the manager was sourcing a gospel choir as she had noted how this type of music uplifted the residents. Entertainers were invited at times and the home joined with its sister home for some activities. On the day of the inspection the activity co-ordinator worked with individuals and tried to engage them in conversation and games. She bought a dog along with her who was a favourite with all who lived at the home and went from one to the next at teatime, in case a crumb of cake was offered or dropped. However because of the size of the home and because there was only three staff on duty in the afternoon if it had not been for the activity co-ordinator the residents would have had very little stimulation as staff were not always visible. It was noted from staff minutes and talking to staff that it was expected that some residents would be up when the day staff arrived on duty. None of the service users spoken to felt they did not have a choice in what time that got up and went to bed, what they had to eat or what they wore, but staff suggesting how many residents should be up could indicate a lack of choice. The inspection spanned lunchtime. The menu was displayed on the board near the dining room and the cook explained the 4-week menu programme that she used and that was changed depending on the season. On the day of the inspection the main meal was roast turkey, potatoes, cauliflower carrots and sweetcorn, followed by rhubarb and ginger crumble and custard; wherever possible fresh seasonal fruit and vegetables were used. There was no alternative listed but the cook explained she discussed the proposed menu with service users daily and would provide options if the meal was not liked. The cook also prepared cakes and homemade biscuits for afternoon tea and had made a quiche towards the supper before going off duty. Kitchen assistants, who would prepare the evening meal and wash up, supported the cook. Tables were attractively set out at mealtimes and where a person needed support it was given in an unobtrusive way. However it was noted that a service user who required a pureed meal had the whole meal pureed together meaning that they did not have the option of having the different flavours individually. Also it did not look at all appetising. The cook stated that she had previously separated the components of the meal but the person had mixed them all together so she had reverted to doing this. Bushmead Court DS0000014995.V349099.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 15 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. This judgement has been made using available evidence including a visit to this service. The home had a clear complaints procedure that was available for anyone to see and use. There was also an ethos that encouraged comments about the home and what was provided, which prevented the complaints procedure having to be used very often. EVIDENCE: There had been no complaints made to, or about, the home since the last inspection, It was clear from reading files that staff involved relatives in the care that was being provided to their loved ones. The manager believed this went along way to preventing the need for complaints. The Statement of Purpose also encouraged anyone involved to discuss any concerns with staff immediately they were identified. The manager had sent out quality questionnaires and had ensured that any of the comments made on them had been acted on and that the respondent had been made aware of the outcome. This gave all stakeholders the assurance that their views were taken seriously. Bushmead Court DS0000014995.V349099.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 16 All of the residents who were asked about how they would make a complaint made it clear that there was not a need to complain, but that if there were they would talk to the manager. An advocacy service was available, and staff had received training from a local advocacy group to support them in making appropriate referrals. Training records indicated that staff had completed mandatory safeguarding training. Staff gave appropriate answers when asked about individual situations of possible abuse and how they should be dealt with. Bushmead Court DS0000014995.V349099.R01.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): 19,26 Quality in this outcome area is excellent. This judgement has been made using available evidence including a visit to this service. A pleasant spacious environment ensured that people had a comfortable place in which to live. EVIDENCE: Because the home had had a large all weather conservatory added to it, and because the home was registered for 27 people, but double rooms were rarely used (except for married couples) the communal areas available were very spacious. Therefore the people who lived at Bushmead Court had the opportunity to walk around the home and to have their meals in different areas to that in which they sat during the day. Bushmead Court DS0000014995.V349099.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 18 People living at the home had access to the well-maintained grounds, which included seating areas for the summer months. The home was close to the river and the town and was ideally situated for those who wanted to go out at times. Ancillary staff were responsible for cleaning, and it was noted that all areas of the home were clean, furnished to a high standard, and free of any unpleasant odours. One new resident, who had only moved in the day before the inspection, had already made her room homely with small tables and ornaments from her own home. Laundry facilities were appropriate and people who had their washing done at the home did not identify any problems with the service. Bushmead Court DS0000014995.V349099.R01.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. This judgement has been made using available evidence including a visit to this service. The staff team had received a variety of training ensuring that they had the skills and experience to care for the people living at Bushmead Court. EVIDENCE: At the time of the inspection four care staff cared for the 22 service users. In addition there were ancillary staff that included cleaners, a cook, kitchen assistants and a handyman. In the afternoon the number of care staff dropped to three. There was nothing seen or heard during the inspection that suggested this complement of staff was insufficient but the manager must keep it under review and be mindful of increasing staffing levels if care needs of the people living at the home increase. The manager had been in post over 9 months and there had not been any new staff recruited, although currently there was a vacancy that was to be advertised. The manager hoped that maybe consideration would be given to having a male carer when new staff were employed as the home now accommodated two male residents. Bushmead Court DS0000014995.V349099.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 20 All of the staff had either NVQ level 2 or above, or were working towards it, which is to be commended. This commitment to training included the cleaning staff who were also undertaking training. At the last inspection it was recorded that; ‘Staff files confirmed that necessary checks are made prior to employment, and proper procedures are in place concerning the recruitment of staff. New staff receive induction training, and their work is supervised by experienced team members’. Because there had been no new staff added to the team this statement had not altered. Training records supplied by the home showed that staff had undertaken statutory training, including moving and handling, fire safety and food hygiene. In addition staff confirmed that they had attended a variety of courses including dementia awareness and Parkinson’s awareness. People living at the home who were spoken with felt that the staff had a satisfactory level of knowledge and felt confident in their abilities to meet their needs. Bushmead Court DS0000014995.V349099.R01.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): 31,33,35,36,37,38 Quality in this outcome area is good. This judgement has been made using available evidence including a visit to this service. The manager showed a commitment to the role that staff respected. This meant that the staff was cohesive and keen to provide good care. EVIDENCE: As already stated the manager had been in post since February 2007. She had previously been a registered manager and was waiting to hear if she had Bushmead Court DS0000014995.V349099.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 22 successfully completed the registration process to become the registered manager of Bushmead Court. She commented that she was well supported by the owners who had health backgrounds and visited at least twice a week The home had sent out a number of satisfaction questionnaires to visitors, staff and health professionals. There was evidence that comments made in any questionnaires had been acted upon but to meet standard 33 fully it was necessary for this to be a regular process that influenced the annual development plan and that any survey results were published and made available to current and prospective service users. Staff meet together regular as teams of care staff, kitchen staff, cleaning staff. Any meetings were well documented. At the time of the inspection the home did not hold any finances on behalf of service users. Service users could either pay for any items, such as hairdressing themselves or these expenses were covered initially by the home and then billed to the service users’ representative. Staff had regular supervision sessions and the manager confirmed that all staff were on track to have six sessions over the course of the year. The manager stated that supervision included clinical supervision and the opportunity to discuss work and personal related matters. All health and safety checks had been undertaken. The last fire alarm check was 31.10.07. On this day fire extinguishers, and fire escapes had been checked. The emergency lighting had last been tested on 24.10.07 and the last fire drill was 22.6.07, when it had taken staff one and a half minutes to leave the building. Bushmead Court DS0000014995.V349099.R01.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 2 3 3 3 X N/A HEALTH AND PERSONAL CARE Standard No Score 7 3 8 3 9 3 10 3 11 x DAILY LIFE AND SOCIAL ACTIVITIES Standard No Score 12 2 13 3 14 2 15 3 COMPLAINTS AND PROTECTION Standard No Score 16 3 17 X 18 3 4 X X X X X X 3 STAFFING Standard No Score 27 3 28 3 29 3 30 3 MANAGEMENT AND ADMINISTRATION Standard No 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 Score 3 X 2 X 3 3 3 3 Bushmead Court DS0000014995.V349099.R01.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 OP1 Regulation 4 and 5 Requirement The Statement of Purpose and the Service Users Guide must be a working document and include all the information required by the regulations, including details about fees. Service users choices about how they spend their time should be recorded and where possible service users should feel that time is well spent and meaningful. Timescale for action 01/01/08 2 OP12 12 01/01/08 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 OP7 OP9 Good Practice Recommendations Staff must ensure that when care needs change the front page of the plan is altered to reflect this. The manager must ensure that the GPs instructions as communicated on the original prescriptions are transcribed to the medication charts. Bushmead Court DS0000014995.V349099.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 25 Commission for Social Care Inspection Bedfordshire & Luton Area Office Clifton House 4a Goldington Road Bedford MK40 3NF 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 Bushmead Court DS0000014995.V349099.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 26 - Please note that this information is included on www.bestcarehome.co.uk under license from the regulator. Re-publishing this information is in breach of the terms of use of that website. Discrete codes and changes have been inserted throughout the textual data shown on the site that will provide incontrovertable proof of copying in the event this information is re-published on other websites. The policy of www.bestcarehome.co.uk is to use all legal avenues to pursue such offenders, including recovery of costs. You have been warned!