Inspection on 07/11/06 for Checaniah House

This inspection was carried out on 7th November 2006.

CSCI has not published a star rating for this report, though using similar criteria we estimate that the report is (sorry - unknown). 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

Checaniah House 06/03/06

Checaniah House 12/09/05

Checaniah House 02/02/05

Checaniah House 18/05/04

Similar services:

Ashlong House

Norbury Crescent (30)

Edenvale

Wadham Avenue

Chatsworth Care - Dawson House

Cowden Road, 52 - 54

Chatsworth Care - Tudor Lodge

Foxley Lane (121a)

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

CARE HOME ADULTS 18-65 Checaniah House 26 Chailey Street London E5 0RX Lead Inspector Sandra Jacobs-Walls Unannounced Inspection 7th November 2006 12:30 Checaniah House DS0000010262.V317325.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 Checaniah House DS0000010262.V317325.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. Checaniah House DS0000010262.V317325.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 3 SERVICE INFORMATION Name of service Checaniah House Address 26 Chailey Street London E5 0RX 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) 020 8533 5400 020 7533 5400 Mrs Joanita Tuitt Mrs Joanita Tuitt Care Home 3 Category(ies) of Learning disability (3) registration, with number of places Checaniah House DS0000010262.V317325.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 4 SERVICE INFORMATION Conditions of registration: Date of last inspection 6th March 2006 Brief Description of the Service: Checaniah House is a small care home that offers support, personal care and accommodation to a maximum of three (younger) adults who have learning difficulties. The home’s premises are a large three bedroom terraced house in a residential area of Clapton within the London Borough of Hackney. The home is walking distance from local shops, a park, market and amenities. Local bus links are good. At the time of the inspection, the three service users who were living at Checaniah House at the last inspection (conducted in March 2006) were still accommodated by the home. All three service users were introduced to the inspector during the inspection, but showed little interest in participating with the inspection process. Checaniah House DS0000010262.V317325.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 5 SUMMARY This is an overview of what the inspector found during the inspection. The unannounced inspection of Checaniah House took place on the afternoon of November 7th 2006 for the duration of four hours, assisting with the inspection was the home’s deputy manager and then later during the inspection, the home’s registered manager. The purpose of the inspection was to assess the home against key National Minimum Standards. The home had no outstanding requirements or recommendations for the previous inspection. The inspection process included discussion with the home’s manager and deputy manager, the review of one service user’s case file and an accompanied tour of the home’s premises. The inspector would like to thank all staff and service users who co-operated and /or contributed to with the inspection. As a result of the inspection no requirements or recommendations were made. What the service does well: What has improved since the last inspection? It was the inspector’s view that the level of care observed during this inspection was similar to the level of care witnessed during the previous inspection. In addition, the home was in the process of developing Personal Centred Planning as an approach to care to further ensure that care offered to service users was specific to identified individual needs. Checaniah House DS0000010262.V317325.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 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. The summary of this inspection report can be made available in other formats on request. Checaniah House DS0000010262.V317325.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 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 Checaniah House DS0000010262.V317325.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 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. JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for the following standard(s): No new service users had been admitted to the home for several years and information available to prospective service users had been reviewed at previous inspections and were considered satisfactory. Therefore, on this occasion, no standards under this heading were assessed. EVIDENCE: Checaniah House DS0000010262.V317325.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 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. JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for the following standard(s): 6,7 & 9 Quality in this outcome area is good. This judgement has been made using available evidence including a visit to this service. EVIDENCE: The deputy manager commented that the needs of all service users had been reassessed during the past year. The service user file reviewed by the inspector confirmed this to be the case; in addition to the care plan devised by staff of the home, the placing authority had also reviewed the service user’s placement at Checaniah House and identified service user needs. The two documented plans seen on file identified similar needs and placement objectives. The deputy manager explained that the service was moving towards adopting person centred planning as an approach to care that would more keenly focus on the ability and known preferences of individual service users than in the past With regard to involving service users with the decision making process, the deputy manager commented that due to communication issues for all three service users, staff needed to be understanding and creative to ensure that Checaniah House DS0000010262.V317325.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 10 service users participated in the decision making process. So, for example, staff would use pictorial cues to indicate to some service users choices with regard to recreational activities, location of activities, decisions about clothes to be worn and meal choices. Service users were then encouraged to make decisions for themselves. The deputy manager indicated that the rituals and habits of all service users were well known to staff and so interpretation of decisions made were respected by staff. The deputy manager illustrated this point by explaining how for one service user, the completion of daily chores was largely dependant upon her “mood” on any given day. The service user would decide not to participate with daily chores and staff would respect this decision. Recently, the deputy manager shared, service users and their advocates had been invited to participate in choosing individual bedroom curtains and bed linen and also carpeting for the home. The inspector saw good evidence on file to suggest that service users and where appropriate, family member/advocates were involved in the assessment and care planning process. The service user case file that was reviewed by the inspector evidenced a written risk assessment. This focused primarily on the risk of the service user falling while out in the community. The inspector also saw written guidance to staff regarding the management of another service user’s sometimes challenging behaviour, also while out in the community. Written guidance was also available to staff regarding the safe handling of a service user who had a known epileptic condition. Checaniah House DS0000010262.V317325.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 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. JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for the following standard(s): 12,13,15,16 & 17 Quality in this outcome area is good. This judgement has been made using available evidence including a visit to this service. EVIDENCE: All three service users living at Checaniah House are involved to varying degrees with local day centre resources. Two service users attended different day centres five days a week, while the third service user attends twice weekly. The inspector saw on file good documented evidence of the effective working relationship between staff of the home and day centre staff in coordinating the service users overall care. Liaison between the two services was good; both services were involved in the statutory reviewing process. In addition to day centre attendance, service users participate in a range of community-based activities in the evening and on weekends. The deputy manager explained that all service users enjoyed local evening walks after their evening meals. Some service users attended a local church and staff of the home were exploring the involvement of service users in another local Checaniah House DS0000010262.V317325.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 12 church that specifically catered for people who had learning difficulties. The deputy manager commented that both she and the manager would make initial enquires and then, involve service users if there was indicated interest. Service users are encouraged to assist staff with food shopping and go shopping for their own clothes with staff. Clothes shopping and shopping for magazines is an enjoyed pastime for one service user in particular. Service users enjoy local resources such as the local park and at the time of the inspection, staff were researching into the possibility of some service users attending a disco specifically for people with learning difficulties. This had arisen, the deputy manager commented out of interest indicated by service users attending and thoroughly enjoying a disco while away on holiday this summer. The deputy manager said this was clear indication to staff that this was an activity that should feature regularly in service users’ lives and so should be facilitated by the home. The deputy manager indicated that two of the three service users have very good contact with family members. The mother of one service user visits the home on a weekly basis to spend time with her daughter. Her visits were said to be enjoyed by all residents who collectively share a close relationship with each other. The home had recently hosted a birthday party for this service users and a number of friends and family members had attended. The other female service user spent major holidays and celebrations at her family home, while the third service user had somewhat limited contact with his family, although he enjoyed infrequent contact with his sibling. The deputy manager commented that two service users had developed good relationships with other attendees of the day centre. The development of friendships had proved more difficult for one service user who largely preferred her own company. The deputy manager informed the inspector that staff were responsible for the preparation of meals, but that service users were encouraged to assist staff with food shopping. The inspector reviewed a number of menu plans for the week of the inspection and a number of weeks prior. Menu plans offered good choice; meals were nutritiously balanced and included frequent vegetable and fruit options. Traditional Caribbean meals were largely offered on Sundays in accordance with the preferences of two service users in particular who were West Indian in origin. Checaniah House DS0000010262.V317325.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 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. 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. EVIDENCE: The deputy manager commented that the personal care needs of all service users were well known to staff due to the length of time service users had lived at the home and the well established staff group. Since none of the service users where physically disabled, most were able to perform personal care tasks independent of staff, who were available for prompting and supervision only. So, for example, staff would encourage service users to brush their teeth effectively and bathe themselves adequately. One service user, who had a dermatological condition, was prompted to apply prescribed cream to the affected area herself. The deputy manager informed the inspector that all service users were registered with local GP practices and that their physical health was keenly monitored via appropriate medical services. The inspector saw supporting evidence of his practice via the service user file that was reviewed – a health action plan was in place. Some service users were receiving services via a consultant psychiatrist to address behavioural issues; the review of prescribed Checaniah House DS0000010262.V317325.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 14 medication was well documented on file. Specialist dental services had been identified for two service users. The inspector reviewed in detail the medication information for one service user. Information was clearly documented and the inspector was satisfied that the administration of service user medication was safe and in accordance with the home’s (previously reviewed) medication policies. The deputy manager confirmed that she and the home’s registered manager were responsible for the periodic monitoring of staff’s administration of medications and that staff had recently completed medication training facilitated by an external trainer. Checaniah House DS0000010262.V317325.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 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. 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. EVIDENCE: The deputy manager commented that there had been no undesired incidents, or accidents involving service users or staff of the home since the last inspection. Similarly, there had been no complaints made against the home or any suspicion or actual instances of an adult protection nature. The inspector reviewed the response questionnaire distributed to stakeholders (service user relatives and involved professionals) as part of the home’s quality assurance systems. Written responses seen were very positive. Checaniah House DS0000010262.V317325.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 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. JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for the following standard(s): 24 & 30 Quality in this outcome area is good. This judgement has been made using available evidence including a visit to this service. EVIDENCE: The inspector participated in an accompanied tour of the home’s premises. The home was very clean and hygienic. Communal areas and service users’ bedrooms were seen, all three were adequately furnished, clean and evidenced the personal effects of service users; each room had a radio, some had stuffed toys, magazines, photographs and posters. The deputy manager informed the inspector that service user bedrooms were due to be re-decorated and that service users and their advocates had been invited to be involved in this process. Service users had previously chosen bed linen for themselves and helped choose carpeting for the home. Good fire precautions were in place with the regular testing of equipment and periodic fire drills; the home’s appliances had been professionally tested within the past 12 months. Managers were due to conduct a health and safety selfassessment. Checaniah House DS0000010262.V317325.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 17 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): 32,34 & 35 Quality in this outcome area is good. This judgement has been made using available evidence including a visit to this service. EVIDENCE: The deputy manager commented that the staff group employed at Checaniah House were well established and that there had been no staff recruitment since the last inspection. Staff personnel records had been reviewed by the inspector at previous inspections and were satisfactorily maintained. The deputy manager and the registered manager had both completed NVQ training at level 4 and the Registered Manager’s Award. Two other staff members had completed NVQ2 training, a third member of staff was due to enrol on NVQ training shortly. Since the last inspection, the staff group had also participated in key training such as food hygiene, first aid, manual handling and medication training; all training had been facilitated by an external training body. The deputy manager and registered manager both commented that they felt the staff group was highly competent and possessed good qualities to enable them to work effectively with the clientele group of Checaniah House. Checaniah House DS0000010262.V317325.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 18 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): 37,39 & 42 Quality in this outcome area is good. This judgement has been made using available evidence including a visit to this service. EVIDENCE: It was the inspector’s view that service users of Checaniah house did benefit from a well run home. Both the registered manager and deputy manager of the home complete regular shifts and have a very ‘hands on’ approach to care and management. It was clear to the inspector that staff were encouraged to adopt the good practices of the management team and provide a service that where the individual needs and quality of life of service users were paramount. The inspector was also struck by the very evident care and compassion of the management team, who spoke enthusiastically of the new planned developments for the service. The management team were excited for the home’s developing use of Person Centred Care and mindful of how service users might benefit from this perspective. Indeed the registered manager commented; “You can’t stay still, you must develop to make things better” Checaniah House DS0000010262.V317325.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 19 The inspector was informed that the home periodically distributed questionnaires to stakeholders in an attempt to gauge satisfaction with the service provided at Checaniah House. The inspector reviewed written responses of the most recent exercise and noted that comments were very positive. The inspector noted the following comment documented by the social worker at the review of one of the service users; “…she has progressed in many ways, her family remain happy with her placement there”. The inspector was clear that the conduct and management of the home was very effective and that this was to the positive benefit of service users living at the home. Checaniah House DS0000010262.V317325.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 20 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 X 2 X 3 X 4 X 5 X 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 X 26 X 27 X 28 X 29 X 30 3 STAFFING Standard No Score 31 X 32 3 33 X 34 3 35 3 36 X CONDUCT AND MANAGEMENT OF THE HOME Standard No 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 Score 3 3 X 3 X LIFESTYLES Standard No Score 11 X 12 3 13 3 14 X 15 3 16 3 17 3 PERSONAL AND HEALTHCARE SUPPORT Standard No 18 19 20 21 Score 3 3 3 X 3 X 3 X X 3 X Checaniah House DS0000010262.V317325.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 21 NO Are there any outstanding requirements from the last inspection? STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS This section sets out the actions, which must be taken so that the registered person/s meets the Care Standards Act 2000, Care Homes Regulations 2001 and the National Minimum Standards. The Registered Provider(s) must comply with the given timescales. No. Standard Regulation Requirement Timescale for action RECOMMENDATIONS These recommendations relate to National Minimum Standards and are seen as good practice for the Registered Provider/s to consider carrying out. No. Refer to Standard Good Practice Recommendations Checaniah House DS0000010262.V317325.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 22 Commission for Social Care Inspection East London Area Office Ferguson House 113 Cranbrook Road Ilford London 1G1 4PU 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 Checaniah House DS0000010262.V317325.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 23 - 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!