Inspection on 30/11/05 for Castle-Ford

This inspection was carried out on 30th November 2005.

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

The inspector found no outstanding requirements from the previous inspection report, but made 1 statutory requirements (actions the home must comply with) as a result of this inspection.

Other inspections for this house

Castle-Ford 29/07/08

Castle-Ford 30/01/08

Castle-Ford 07/11/06

Castle-Ford 09/06/05

Castle-Ford 07/12/04

Castle-Ford 06/07/04

Castle-Ford 22/01/04

Similar services:

Larch Avenue

Alderson Road 12

Cranworth Close Registered Care Home

Pennine Camphill

Muston Road (70)

Grayling

The Cornerstone

John Street Nursing Home

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

CARE HOME ADULTS 18-65 Castle-Ford 46-48 Princes Avenue Withernsea East Riding Of Yorks HU19 2JA Lead Inspector Mr M. A. Tomlinson Unannounced Inspection 30th November 2005 10:00 Castle-Ford DS0000019657.V267697.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 Castle-Ford DS0000019657.V267697.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. Castle-Ford DS0000019657.V267697.R01.S.doc Version 5.0 Page 3 SERVICE INFORMATION Name of service Castle-Ford Address 46-48 Princes Avenue Withernsea East Riding Of Yorks HU19 2JA 01964 613164 01964 612412 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 John Frederick Wright Christine Wright, Mr Mark Anthony Wright, Duncan Joseph Wright Mr Mark Anthony Wright Care Home 18 Category(ies) of Learning disability (18) registration, with number of places Castle-Ford DS0000019657.V267697.R01.S.doc Version 5.0 Page 4 SERVICE INFORMATION Conditions of registration: Date of last inspection 9th June 2005 Brief Description of the Service: Castleford is a privately owned registered establishment catering for the needs of 18 service users who have learning difficulties. It is located in the seaside town of Withernsea and is within walking distance of the local shops and public transport. The home consists of three terraced properties converted into one building. There are several lounges, an activities area, a small shop run by the home and a sensory room. There are 4 double rooms and 10 single rooms none of which have en-suite facilities. There is not a stair lift or hoist in the home. There is a reasonably private garden and adjacent car parking. The staff in the home endeavour to meet all personal care needs of the service users. The home does not provide nursing care. Should such care be required on a short-term basis then it will be provided by the community healthcare services. Castle-Ford DS0000019657.V267697.R01.S.doc Version 5.0 Page 5 SUMMARY This is an overview of what the inspector found during the inspection. This inspection was the second of two statutory inspections undertaken at Castle-Ford by the Commission for Social care Inspection during this inspectoral year. The inspection took approximately nine hours including preparation time and telephone calls subsequently made to several relatives of service users and health and social care professionals. The inspection primarily focussed on those requirements and recommendations made during the previous inspection and on those National Minimum Standards not assessed on that occasion. The registered manager, along with the manager of Eastfield House, was available throughout the inspection. During the latter stages of the inspection the registered persons were also available in the home. The more able service users were spoken to both as a group and on an individual basis. Reliance was also placed on observing the service users and in particular their relationship with the staff. Discussions were held with the staff on duty. An inspection of the premises was undertaken along with an examination of several statutory records, policies and procedures. Feedback with regard to the findings of the inspection was provided for the registered manager. What the service does well: What has improved since the last inspection? The requirements, and the majority of the recommendations, made during the previous inspection had been addressed. The registered manager had continued to establish links with health and social care professionals in particular those on the Community Learning Disability Team. Some of the statutory records had been reviewed and revised. Castle-Ford DS0000019657.V267697.R01.S.doc Version 5.0 Page 6 What they could do better: Please contact the provider for advice of actions taken in response to this inspection. The report of this inspection is available from enquiries@csci.gsi.gov.uk or by contacting your local CSCI office. Castle-Ford DS0000019657.V267697.R01.S.doc Version 5.0 Page 7 DETAILS OF INSPECTOR FINDINGS CONTENTS Choice of Home (Standards 1–5) Individual Needs and Choices (Standards 6-10) Lifestyle (Standards 11-17) Personal and Healthcare Support (Standards 18-21) Concerns, Complaints and Protection (Standards 22-23) Environment (Standards 24-30) Staffing (Standards 31-36) Conduct and Management of the Home (Standards 37 – 43) Scoring of Outcomes Statutory Requirements Identified During the Inspection Castle-Ford DS0000019657.V267697.R01.S.doc Version 5.0 Page 8 Choice of Home The intended outcomes for Standards 1 – 5 are: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Prospective service users have the information they need to make an informed choice about where to live. Prospective users’ individual aspirations and needs are assessed. Prospective service users know that the home that they will choose will meet their needs and aspirations. Prospective service users have an opportunity to visit and to “test drive” the home. Each service user has an individual written contract or statement of terms and conditions with the home. The Commission consider Standard 2 the key standard to be inspected at least once during a 12 month period. JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for the following standard(s): 3 and 5 The terms and conditions of residence provided for the service users are unambiguous and should therefore minimise the possibility of misunderstanding with regard to the service that is provided by the home. EVIDENCE: Following the requirement made during the previous inspection, the registered manager of Castle-Ford had revised the service users’ contracts and terms of residence to ensure that they comply with the National Minimum Standards. Four contracts were examined. These had been signed in agreement either by the service user concerned or their representative. In some cases an advocate had signed the contracts on behalf of the service users. The registered manager acknowledged that a letter of confirmation was not provided for a prospective service user or their representative during the final stages of the admission process. Castle-Ford DS0000019657.V267697.R01.S.doc Version 5.0 Page 9 Individual Needs and Choices The intended outcomes for Standards 6 – 10 are: 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. Service users know their assessed and changing needs and personal goals are reflected in their individual Plan. Service users make decisions about their lives with assistance as needed. Service users are consulted on, and participate in, all aspects of life in the home. Service users are supported to take risks as part of an independent lifestyle. Service users know that information about them is handled appropriately, and that their confidences are kept. The Commission considers Standards 6, 7 and 9 the key standards to be inspected at least once during a 12 month period. JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for the following standard(s): 6, 7, 8 and 9 The service users’ care plans were clear and reasonably comprehensive thereby providing the staff with adequate information on which to develop good standards of care. EVIDENCE: All of the service users had been provided with a care plan developed by the home. These were in addition to care plans provided by the service users’ placing authorities. Four care plans were examined. They were reasonably comprehensive and clearly identified the primary needs of the service users. The service user concerned or their representative had signed the care plans in agreement. The more able service users spoken to during the inspection were aware of their care plans and felt comfortable in discussing the details of their plan. There was also recorded evidence that the care plans had been regularly reviewed with the involvement of the service user and/or their representative. The staff, service users and several relatives of service users confirmed this. There was also evidence that the care plans had been audited by the manager to ensure that were appropriate and accurate. The registered manager acknowledged that on occasions the recording in the care records could be of a better standard and that they were working with staff to address this. Castle-Ford DS0000019657.V267697.R01.S.doc Version 5.0 Page 10 It was evident from the discussions held with the more able service users that they were aware of what was going on in the home and that they had been included in planning social activities, for example. Several of the service users participate in the running of the home by, for example, assisting with shopping and general domestic tasks. One of the service users saw themselves more as a member of staff than a service user and by doing so had developed their self-esteem. The level of service user involvement in the home was confirmed through telephone conversations with some of their relatives. The service users presented as having a range of needs from the very independent service users who required minimal staff input to, at the other end of the spectrum, service users who depended on staff support to function successfully. It was evident from discussions with the staff, however, that all the service users, regardless of disability, were encouraged to act independently even where this meant them undertaking a degree of risk. It was observed, for example, that the staff did not ‘fuss’ over the service users but allowed them to live their lives at their own pace and, where possible, ‘do their own thing’. Several of the more able service users were able to go out unsupervised. The relative of one of the less able service users reiterated this promotion of the service users’ independence. They stated before the service user concerned came to live in Castle-Ford, the service user was introverted, did not relate to people, did not enjoy socialising and even refused to walk. According to this relative the service user had ‘now developed into a young woman and now enjoyed going out and meeting people’. She went on to say, “It’s a little miracle as far as I’m concerned”. Castle-Ford DS0000019657.V267697.R01.S.doc Version 5.0 Page 11 Lifestyle The intended outcomes for Standards 11 - 17 are: 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. Service users have opportunities for personal development. Service users are able to take part in age, peer and culturally appropriate activities. Service users are part of the local community. Service users engage in appropriate leisure activities. Service users have appropriate personal, family and sexual relationships. Service users’ rights are respected and responsibilities recognised in their daily lives. Service users are offered a healthy diet and enjoy their meals and mealtimes. The Commission considers Standards 12, 13, 15, 16 and 17 the key standards to be inspected at least once during a 12 month period. JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for the following standard(s): 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 and 17 The service users are enabled to follow a reasonably active lifestyle that had been based on their assessed needs, abilities and wishes. EVIDENCE: The records provided evidence that there was a programme of structured group activities in the home. These took place each morning and afternoon during weekdays and were supervised and managed by a member of staff. The service users confirmed this arrangement. On the day of the inspection an activities group was held in the dining room and comprised of six service users making advent calendars and wrapping Christmas presents. Several of the service users attended local day centres during the week. It was evident that maximum use is made of local community facilities in order to develop the service users’ social skills and integrate them into the community. The home has a sensory room and a ‘sensory room evaluation sheet’ had been developed to provide basic information on how often the room is used, by whom and with what success. The home has its own vehicle and the service users confirmed that they were regularly taken out and that boredom was not an issue. Castle-Ford DS0000019657.V267697.R01.S.doc Version 5.0 Page 12 Comments from the relatives of service users included, “She (service user) has a good social life. I don’t believe in them (service users) sitting around like vegetables. They (service users) are always doing something”, “They (staff) take them out for lunch and they go all over. They do a lot with her (service user)”, “Her (service user) social skills have improved. She goes out for a walk and knows a lot of people locally” and “ Everybody (service users) lead a good life – it’s like a family”. A number of the service users had good contact with members of their family. This was confirmed by several of the service users’ relatives. These relatives confirmed that they can visit the home at any time and that they are made to feel welcome by the staff. They also confirmed that they are involved in the service users’ reviews and are kept informed of the respective service user’s welfare and state of health. One of the relatives said that having their son admitted into Castle-Ford was ‘the best thing we’ve ever done for him’. From discussions with the staff and service users, it was concluded that the civil rights of the service users are promoted but also balanced against their abilities, level of understanding and wishes. An incident was, for example, included in the previous report where a service user dressed in, what was considered, inappropriate clothing. It appeared, however, that the service user had made the decision to dress in this manner and that their relatives approved of it. It was the view of the service user’s relatives and the home’s manager that the service users have the right to conduct themselves in whatever way they wish within the confines of the care home providing that it is done with good taste and intent. It was recommended that such idiosyncrasies should be identified in the service user’s care plan. An employee of MENCAP who regularly visits the home stated that she interviews the service users to ensure that they are being well cared for. The home’s menus indicated that the service users were provided with a balanced diet that was based on their wishes and known preferences. A relative confirmed that the service users are provided with a choice of meal. The more able service users expressed their satisfaction with the quality of the meals. The service users were regularly taken out for a meal and some had a meal at their day placement. One service user, who had an eating disorder and was chronically under-weight on their admission into the home, had made considerable progress. They had put on weight and ate ‘normal’ meals thereby reducing the need for a high calorific liquid diet. The staff had achieved this with input from a dietician and a speech therapist. It was observed that during lunch on the day of the inspection the service users were able to eat their meal at their own pace. Castle-Ford DS0000019657.V267697.R01.S.doc Version 5.0 Page 13 Personal and Healthcare Support The intended outcomes for Standards 18 - 21 are: 18. 19. 20. 21. Service users receive personal support in the way they prefer and require. Service users’ physical and emotional health needs are met. Service users retain, administer and control their own medication where appropriate, and are protected by the home’s policies and procedures for dealing with medicines. The ageing, illness and death of a service user are handled with respect and as the individual would wish. The Commission considers Standards 18, 19, and 20 the key standards to be inspected at least once during a 12 month period. JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for the following standard(s): 18 an 19 Whilst action had been taken to address the behavioural problems of some service users, these actions were in general somewhat negative in approach and could have a detrimental effect on the standard of service provided by the home. EVIDENCE: From discussions with, and observation of, the service users, it was apparent that were able to lead reasonably active lives. Their daily routines took into account their abilities and wishes. On the day of the inspection the service users were dressed in clean and appropriate clothing. This, according to the relatives of the service users, was the norm. A relative confirmed that the service users were regularly taken to buy clothes and that in relation to the particular service user concerned, “She is dressed beautifully and her hair is always done”. It was evident that the service users can get up in the morning and retire to bed when they wished. One service user had difficulty sleeping during the night and consequently the staff ensured that she gets compensatory rest during the day. The home employs a key-worker system and records were maintained to verify that the key-workers were spending ‘quality time’ with their allocated service users. Castle-Ford DS0000019657.V267697.R01.S.doc Version 5.0 Page 14 It was noted that one of the more able service users referred to the registered person as ‘mum’. When asked why, she replied, “ I call her mum because she is like a mum. Who else do you go to when you want help?” The records confirmed that the service users’ health care needs had been met with good support being provided by health care professionals. Telephone discussions were held subsequent to the inspection with members of the Community Learning Disability Team. They confirmed that the staff took, and adhered, to their advice. They had also provided the staff with training on some health issues. Several of the service users’ relatives confirmed that they were kept informed of the health of service users and that the staff of the home had not hesitated to obtain healthcare support when necessary. As during the previous inspection, it was observed that there were no toilet rolls available in the toilets used by service users. According to the manager, the rationale for this was that some service users who had behavioural problems insisted on putting whole toilet rolls down the toilet thereby causing a blockage and, in at least one case, flooding. The more able service users had been provided with their own toilet rolls. There was no evidence, however, that a solution to this problem had been sought from external professionals. Castle-Ford DS0000019657.V267697.R01.S.doc Version 5.0 Page 15 Concerns, Complaints and Protection The intended outcomes for Standards 22 – 23 are: 22. 23. Service users feel their views are listened to and acted on. Service users are protected from abuse, neglect and self-harm. The Commission considers Standards 22, and 23 the key standards to be inspected at least once during a 12 month period. JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for the following standard(s): 23 The service users generally have a good external support network that should ensure that their welfare and safety is appropriately monitored and protect them from harm. EVIDENCE: The staff had received training in Adult Protection procedures that in included the types and indications of abuse, by a commercial training organisation. The staff spoken to demonstrated a reasonable understanding of the subject. External professionals who visited the home also undertook monitoring of the service users’ wellbeing. Those relatives of service users spoken to were confident that they would be aware of any unacceptable practices and had no doubt that they would report such practices should they occur. Castle-Ford DS0000019657.V267697.R01.S.doc Version 5.0 Page 16 Environment The intended outcomes for Standards 24 – 30 are: 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. Service users live in a homely, comfortable and safe environment. Service users’ bedrooms suit their needs and lifestyles. Service users’ bedrooms promote their independence. Service users’ toilets and bathrooms provide sufficient privacy and meet their individual needs. Shared spaces complement and supplement service users’ individual rooms. Service users have the specialist equipment they require to maximise their independence. The home is clean and hygienic. The Commission considers Standards 24, and 30 the key standards to be inspected at least once during a 12 month period. JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for the following standard(s): 24, 26, 28 and 30 Whilst the service users are in general provided with a homely and comfortable environment, there were some aspects that detracted from the overall ambience of homeliness. EVIDENCE: The home continued to be maintained, furnished and decorated to a satisfactory standard. It was very clean and there were no offensive odours. A number of bedrooms were inspected and it was evident that the service users had been enabled to furnish them with their personal belongings. Several of the bedrooms were shared. Whilst the service users confirmed that they did not object to this arrangement, it could, it is argued, undermine the promotion of their independence and their privacy. The service users had a choice of sitting areas, each one being appropriately furnished. To the credit of the manager and the staff, the communal areas presented as being domestic in nature and appropriate for the use of the service users. These areas also had ornaments on display, pictures on the walls and a television that consequently enhanced the feeling of homeliness. The lack of a passenger lift limited the admission of service users to those who were fully ambulant. Castle-Ford DS0000019657.V267697.R01.S.doc Version 5.0 Page 17 A third of the radiators in the home were of a low surface temperature type. The others were standard radiators that did not have safety guards fitted. According to the manager, and confirmed by the records, this had been the subject of a risk assessment based on the level of understanding and the capabilities of the occupants of these rooms. The records provided confirmation that the temperature of the hot water accessible to the service users was regularly tested. Two outlets were tested and were found to be within the recommended safety limit. In some shared bedrooms the hot water had been disconnected due to service users leaving the tap on and causing a flood. There was no evidence that an alternative solution had been sought with regards to this problem. As during the previous inspection it was noted that several of the ceiling lights, including one in a service users’ lounge, were not fitted with shades. This arrangement looked somewhat stark and detracted from the homely impression of the home. The ceiling light bulb in the sensory room had been removed leaving an open electrical socket. The bathroom on the ground floor incorporated a ‘walk-in’ shower cubicle. It was apparent that this was well used by the service users. Castle-Ford DS0000019657.V267697.R01.S.doc Version 5.0 Page 18 Staffing The intended outcomes for Standards 31 – 36 are: 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. Service users benefit from clarity of staff roles and responsibilities. Service users are supported by competent and qualified staff. Service users are supported by an effective staff team. Service users are supported and protected by the home’s recruitment policy and practices. Service users’ individual and joint needs are met by appropriately trained staff. Service users benefit from well supported and supervised staff. The Commission considers Standards 32, 34 and 35 the key standards to be inspected at least once during a 12 month period. JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for the following standard(s): 32, 33, 34 and 35 The service users are well supported by the staff team although the range of tasks undertaken by support staff could undermine the future development of the service. EVIDENCE: It was evident from observing and speaking to the staff that they had established a good relationship with the service users who for their part spoke of the staff in complimentary terms. The relatives of service users made several positive comments with regard to the staff including, “It is absolutely brilliant at Castle-Ford, particularly the attitude of the staff towards the clients and their relatives”, “The staff are marvellous. They go beyond what is expected”, “I can’t praise them highly enough” and “The owners have high standards”. The staff records confirmed that the staff had received training in statutory and non-statutory subjects including training in adult protection, challenging behaviour and nutrition. Members of the Community Learning Disability Team had provided some training input. Since the last inspection several of the staff had taken the Learning Disability Award Framework. Only a few of the staff had obtained a National Vocational Qualification as, according to the registered manager, they were still awaiting an allocation of funding. Castle-Ford DS0000019657.V267697.R01.S.doc Version 5.0 Page 19 It was evident from the records that there had been no regression in terms of staffing since the previous inspection. It was, however, noted that the support staff also undertook domestic duties such as cleaning and cooking in addition to their primary duty. Some of the healthcare professionals were of the opinion that the current staffing level could limit future development of the service. The staff records confirmed that appropriate vetting procedures were undertaken on prospective staff. This included members of staff who were previously employed in the home. In the majority of cases the POVA First procedure was used. In such cases interim supervisory arrangements were in place. This prevented provisional members of staff from providing personal care for service users without direct supervision. The home included the service users in the staff recruitment process by actively seeking their views on a member of staff during their probationary period. Castle-Ford DS0000019657.V267697.R01.S.doc Version 5.0 Page 20 Conduct and Management of the Home The intended outcomes for Standards 37 – 43 are: 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. Service users benefit from a well run home. Service users benefit from the ethos, leadership and management approach of the home. Service users are confident their views underpin all self-monitoring, review and development by the home. Service users’ rights and best interests are safeguarded by the home’s policies and procedures. Service users’ rights and best interests are safeguarded by the home’s record keeping policies and procedures. The health, safety and welfare of service users are promoted and protected. Service users benefit from competent and accountable management of the service. The Commission considers Standards 37, 39, and 42 the key standards to be inspected at least once during a 12 month period. JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for the following standard(s): 37, 39 and 40 The manager demonstrated a sound understanding of the service users’ needs including those aspects of care, such as the promotion of choice and independence, which go to provide them with a good quality of life. EVIDENCE: The registered manager demonstrated a good understanding of the needs of the service users and of those elements of care, such as the promotion of independence and choice, which go to provide them with a good quality of life. He has yet to commence a National Vocational Qualification in both management and care. The registered manager demonstrated that he endeavoured to apply an inclusive and open style of management. As previous mentioned in the report he has actively sought the views of the service users with respect to new staff and he had delegated appropriate areas of responsibility to members of staff. Castle-Ford DS0000019657.V267697.R01.S.doc Version 5.0 Page 21 Whilst there was some progress in developing a quality assurance monitoring process, this needs to be expanded to include the views of health and social care professionals with regard to the service provided. The home had implemented the required and recommended policies and procedures. In general these been developed by a commercial training company who regularly provided amendments and updates to ensure that the policies remain current. The policies and procedures were readily available to the staff. From an examination of the health and safety related records, discussions with the manager and an inspection of the premises, it was evident that the registered manager had taken reasonable steps to ensure a safe environment for the service users and the staff. Risk assessments had been undertaken. As previously mentioned in the report one area of concern was identified. This was the fact that the majority of the radiators were not fitted with safety guards even though some beds were against them. It was acknowledged that this arrangement had been the subject of a risk assessment and apparently took into account the capability of individual service users. It was confirmed that the fire detection system and associated equipment had been serviced and that the staff had been provided with training in fire safety procedures. Castle-Ford DS0000019657.V267697.R01.S.doc Version 5.0 Page 22 SCORING OF OUTCOMES This page summarises the assessment of the extent to which the National Minimum Standards for Care Homes for Adults 18-65 have been met and uses the following scale. The scale ranges from: 4 Standard Exceeded 2 Standard Almost Met (Commendable) (Minor Shortfalls) 3 Standard Met 1 Standard Not Met (No Shortfalls) (Major Shortfalls) “X” in the standard met box denotes standard not assessed on this occasion “N/A” in the standard met box denotes standard not applicable CHOICE OF HOME CONCERNS AND COMPLAINTS Standard No 1 2 3 4 5 Score X X 1 X 3 Standard No 22 23 Score X 3 ENVIRONMENT INDIVIDUAL NEEDS AND CHOICES Standard No 6 7 8 9 10 Score 3 3 3 3 X Standard No 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 STAFFING Score 2 X 2 X 3 X 3 LIFESTYLES Standard No Score 11 X 12 3 13 3 14 2 15 3 16 2 17 Standard No 31 32 33 34 35 36 Score X 2 2 3 3 X CONDUCT AND MANAGEMENT OF THE HOME 3 PERSONAL AND HEALTHCARE SUPPORT Standard No 18 19 20 21 Castle-Ford Score 2 3 X X Standard No 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 Score 2 X 2 3 X X X DS0000019657.V267697.R01.S.doc Version 5.0 Page 23 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 YA3 Regulation 14(d) Requirement The registered person is to confirm in writing to the prospective service user, or their representative, that the home is suitable for the service user and can fully meet their assessed needs. Timescale for action 01/01/06 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 YA16and YA14 Good Practice Recommendations Significant behavioural problems and personal idiosyncrasies presented by service users should be identified in their care plans along with the actions to be taken by the staff to ensure that the service user’s dignity and well being is upheld. The practice of restricting the availability of toilet rolls to service users should be reviewed and advice sought to address the behaviour of those service users who have apparently made this practice necessary. This action should also be taken with regard to limiting the availability of hot water in the bedrooms of identified service users. The practice of not fitting safety guards should be DS0000019657.V267697.R01.S.doc Version 5.0 Page 24 2. YA26YA18 3. YA24 Castle-Ford 4. 5. 6. 7. YA32 YA33 YA37 YA39 reviewed particularly for those service users who have their bed against a radiator. All ceiling lights should be fitted with appropriate shades. The ceiling light in the sensory room should have the bulb replaced or the bulb socket made safe. Action should be taken to ensure that the staff undertake a National Vocational Qualification at level 2 or above. The day staffing level should be reviewed along with the tasks undertaken by the support workers to ensure that the needs of the service users can be met at all times. The registered manager should take action to achieve a National Vocational Qualification at level 4 in both management and care. The quality assurance monitoring process should be extended to include the views and comments of health and social care professionals who visit the home and/or have a direct interest in the wellbeing and care of the service users. Castle-Ford DS0000019657.V267697.R01.S.doc Version 5.0 Page 25 Commission for Social Care Inspection York Area Office Unit 4 Triune Court Monks Cross York YO32 9GZ 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 Castle-Ford DS0000019657.V267697.R01.S.doc Version 5.0 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!