Inspection on 12/07/05 for Christchurch Court

This inspection was carried out on 12th July 2005.

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

Christchurch Court 13/02/07

Christchurch Court 21/11/05

Christchurch Court 24/01/05

Christchurch Court 17/06/04

Christchurch Court 02/02/04

Similar services:

Trevayler Residential Care Home

Thornham Grove

Thistle Hill Hall

Conifer Lodge

Westwood Lodge

Egerton Lodge Care Home

Alfred Minto House Care Home

St Matthews Unit

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

CARE HOME ADULTS 18-65 Christchurch Court 2 Christchurch Court Abington Northanmpton NN1 5LL Lead Inspector Sarah Jenkins Unannounced 12 July 2005 @ 09:00 a.m. 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 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 Stationary 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. Christchurch Court D C51 C08 S12742 Christchurch Court V236038 120705 Stage 4.doc Version 1.40 Page 3 SERVICE INFORMATION Name of service Christchurch Court Address 2 Christchurch Court Abington Northampton NN1 5LL 01604 639838 01604 631895 Telephone number Fax number Email address Name of registered provider(s)/company (if applicable) Name of registered manager (if applicable) Type of registration No. of places registered (if applicable) Marigold Contracts Limited Mrs Miranda Newman Care Home Only 23 Category(ies) of Mental Disorder (MD) 23 registration, with number of places Christchurch Court D C51 C08 S12742 Christchurch Court V236038 120705 Stage 4.doc Version 1.40 Page 4 SERVICE INFORMATION Conditions of registration: 1. No person falling within the category MD, excluding learning disability or dementia can be admitted where there are 23 persons of category MD already in the home. 2. The age range of Service Users is between 19 - 65 years. 3. The overall numbers may include one exisiting named service user who is over the age of 65 and who also has a Physical Disability. 4. All service users admitted to the home will have an aquired brain injury. 5. The total number of services users accommodated at any one time must not exceed 23. Date of last inspection 24/01/05 Brief Description of the Service: Christchurch Court is a care home providing personal care and accommodation for 23 service users with Mental Disorder with all service users having an acquired brain injury. The age range of service users is 19 to 65 years with an additional condition that the home may continue to provide care for one existing named service user over the age of 65 years. The Home is owned by Marigold Contracts Ltd. and the Manager is Mrs. M. Newman.The Home is located in a suburb of Northampton, close to a local shopping centre and nearby park. The Home is easily accessible by Public Transport.The premises consist of a two-storey building offering all single room accommodation. 11 of the bedrooms have en-suite facilities. There are two lounge areas, a dining room and a conservatory. The Home does not have a lift. There is a courtyard garden area. Christchurch Court D C51 C08 S12742 Christchurch Court V236038 120705 Stage 4.doc Version 1.40 Page 5 SUMMARY This is an overview of what the inspector found during the inspection. The focus of inspections undertaken by the Commission for Social Care Inspection (CSCI) is upon outcomes for Service Users and their views of the service provided. This process considers the home’s capacity to meet regulatory requirements, minimum standards of practice; and focuses on aspects of service provisions that need further development. The primary method of inspection used was ‘case tracking’ which involved selecting 2 service users and tracking the care they receive through meeting with the service users, a review of their records, discussions with the care staff and observation of care practices. The Inspector visited during the morning to observe practices by staff and to meet with service users. Service users have acquired brain injuries and thereby communication for some is difficult. Establishing Service Users choices and informed decisions is dependant to some extent upon the consistency of staff, service users relationships with staff, and the quality of communication. Feedback obtained from Service Users in this report was in part through observations of their relationships with staff, and also through interpretations of their general levels of happiness with their routines. The inspector received fifteen comment cards fro Service Users and seven from involved friends and relatives. These were largely very positive about the home. What the service does well: The staff at Christchurch Court are properly focussed on the individual needs of the Service Users, and enable them to develop fulfilling lifestyles and routines that incorporate all their rights as individual members of the community. The staff team is committed to providing a professional service and staff feel well supported by the management team and the organization. Staff met at the time of the inspection demonstrated warm and caring attitudes, and the delivery of care in a quietly calm and effective manner. Service Users are being properly involved in the phased building development work and although there is inevitably some disruption to them in a development of this kind, they reported to the inspector that they were being considered and included in decisions, and that additional outings were being organized to minimize the impact of the disruption. Christchurch Court D C51 C08 S12742 Christchurch Court V236038 120705 Stage 4.doc Version 1.40 Page 6 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. Christchurch Court D C51 C08 S12742 Christchurch Court V236038 120705 Stage 4.doc Version 1.40 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 Standards Statutory Requirements Identified During the Inspection Christchurch Court D C51 C08 S12742 Christchurch Court V236038 120705 Stage 4.doc Version 1.40 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 standard(s) 1, 2 and 5 Service Users are properly assessed and given full information with which to make a decision about coming to the home. EVIDENCE: The assessment information on Service Users files, gathered prior to their admission was full and informative. Further detail is gathered and entered onto the Service Users record as it becomes evident. A Service User recently admitted to the home assured the Inspector that he had all the information he required and that he had been properly assisted in the choice of the home. The Service Users guide was available. Service Users had individual signed contracts on their files, which met the Standards. Christchurch Court D C51 C08 S12742 Christchurch Court V236038 120705 Stage 4.doc Version 1.40 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 standard(s) 7 and 9 Service Users are enabled to exercise choice and offered appropriate guidance on realistic goals. EVIDENCE: Service Users informed the inspector of the ways in which they were supported and encouraged to develop their lifestyles. They felt staff were most supportive in this. Staff confirmed that they thought they worked well as a team in meeting Service Users needs and wishes. Review reports and discussions with staff and Service Users demonstrate that staff respond to Service Users changing needs, and enable reasonable risk taking subject to proper assessment. From discussion it was evident that some Service Users have developed their independence skills since admission. The Inspector received 15 feedback comment cards from Service Users which were generally positive about the home. Christchurch Court D C51 C08 S12742 Christchurch Court V236038 120705 Stage 4.doc Version 1.40 Page 10 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 standard(s) 11, 12, 15, 16 and 17 Service Users lead normal and fulfilling lifestyles within the confines of their disabilities. EVIDENCE: Each Service User has a full programme of chosen and agreed activities throughout the week. The ethos of the home is to provide a normal homely environment where people can develop their potential, and this was evident in discussion and observation. Service Users were confident about expressing their opinions to the inspector and spoke confidently about the home as a positive environment even when making negative observations (See below). There was evidence of Service Users rights being respected, for example one Service User prefers her room to be full of her possessions even though this may be judged cluttered by others. Staff support her right in this whilst remaining alert to Health and Safety issues. Christchurch Court D C51 C08 S12742 Christchurch Court V236038 120705 Stage 4.doc Version 1.40 Page 11 Service Users have recently been enabled to take a holiday away from Northampton and staff reported that this was very successful and that they all enjoyed this. Two Service Users who spoke to the Inspector felt that the food was “too healthy”, but staff informed the inspector that there are regular opportunities for Service Users to have less healthy options if they prefer. The menu plans submitted showed a good variety of appetizing and nutrituious menus and choices were available. Most comment cards reflected positively on the food provision. Christchurch Court D C51 C08 S12742 Christchurch Court V236038 120705 Stage 4.doc Version 1.40 Page 12 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 standard(s) 18, 19 and 20 Service Users are properly supported to maintain their health and personal care. EVIDENCE: Service Users were all seen to be well presented at the time of the inspection, a Service User reported to the inspector he was able to maintain a reasonable hygiene routine through discreet prompts from staff. Staff were observed to be alert to Service Users needs, for example sitting quietly with those who needed assistance and support at the breakfast table. Service Users reported that they were properly supported to access healthcare services and this was confirmed in records. The medication cabinet was well organized and Service Users reported that they always received their medications on time. Staff have good medication administration training and support, and detailed policies and procedures are available. Christchurch Court D C51 C08 S12742 Christchurch Court V236038 120705 Stage 4.doc Version 1.40 Page 13 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 standard(s) 23 Service Users are properly protected through an open atmosphere and the training and awareness of staff . EVIDENCE: Staff receive a good training package including knowledge in the area of the Protection of Vulnerable Adults. Policies and procedures include abuse awareness and whistle blowing. A recent incident at the home was properly managed and reported. Christchurch Court D C51 C08 S12742 Christchurch Court V236038 120705 Stage 4.doc Version 1.40 Page 14 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 standard(s) 24, 25 and 30 The home is comfortable homely and mainly safe although a shortfall was identified regarding a window. EVIDENCE: The premises were generally in good order, bright, safe, clean and comfortable. Service Users expressed general satisfaction with their bedroom facilities, and were seen to have personalized these spaces. In one bedroom sampled someone appeared to have removed the window restrictor making the low window potentially dangerous. It was thought that this may have been removed to increase ventilation in the recent hot weather. The home was seen to be clean and hygienic throughout. Christchurch Court D C51 C08 S12742 Christchurch Court V236038 120705 Stage 4.doc Version 1.40 Page 15 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 35 the key standard to be inspected at least once during a 12 month period. JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for standard(s) 34, 35 and 36 Service Users benefit from the support of a trained and committed staff team. EVIDENCE: Staff are professionally recruited and records and interviews with staff demonstrated a thorough recruitment procedure. The home has a dedicated training officer who is qualified to deliver some of the statutory training. Individual training plans are available and staff are prompted to attend update training as required. Staff spoke positively of the training opportunities available to them. Service Users were of the opinion that the staff were properly trained and experienced to deliver a professional service. Although staff reported regular supervision records of these were not available, as they were thought to be still in filing (dating back to 2004). Christchurch Court D C51 C08 S12742 Christchurch Court V236038 120705 Stage 4.doc Version 1.40 Page 16 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 39, and 42 the key standards to be inspected at least once during a 12 month period. JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for standard(s) 38, 39, 42 and 43 The home is well managed for the benefit of Service Users. EVIDENCE: The Registered Manager is well supported by her Assistant Manager. Both have the Registered Managers award and a third member of staff is hoping to complete this shortly. Additionally there is an operations manger responsible for staff training and a programme manager responsible for some aspects of staff management and Quality Assurance. Staff at the home feel that the management team and senior staff are all approachable and there is an “open door” management style. Service Users are encouraged to attend residents meetings to air their views and wishes. These are well attended and Service Users stated that they felt Christchurch Court D C51 C08 S12742 Christchurch Court V236038 120705 Stage 4.doc Version 1.40 Page 17 able to comment on the care at the home. Details of the ongoing building work are posted publicly and Service Users said that they felt well informed. The quality of the environment and the ongoing improvement and extension work are felt to be indicative of successful financial planning and control. Christchurch Court D C51 C08 S12742 Christchurch Court V236038 120705 Stage 4.doc Version 1.40 Page 18 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 3 3 x x 3 Standard No 22 23 ENVIRONMENT Score x 3 INDIVIDUAL NEEDS AND CHOICES Standard No 6 7 8 9 10 LIFESTYLES Score x 3 x 3 x Score Standard No 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 STAFFING Score 2 3 x x x x 3 Standard No 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 3 3 x x 3 3 3 Standard No 31 32 33 34 35 36 Score x x x 3 3 2 CONDUCT AND MANAGEMENT OF THE HOME PERSONAL AND HEALTHCARE SUPPORT Standard No 18 19 20 21 Christchurch Court Score 3 3 3 x Standard No 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 Score x 3 3 x x 3 3 D C51 C08 S12742 Christchurch Court V236038 120705 Stage 4.doc Version 1.40 Page 19 N/A Are there any outstanding requirements from the last inspection? STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS This section sets out the actions which must be taken so that the registered person/s meets the Care Standards Act 2000, Care Homes Regulations 2001 and the National Minimum Standards. The Registered Provider(s) must comply with the given timescales. No. 1. Standard 24 Regulation 13 Requirement All windows must be checked for safety, and window restrictors must be in place where necessary to prevent unecessary risk to Service users or staff. Timescale for action By July 28th 2005 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 36 Good Practice Recommendations Records to demonstrate staff supervision should be filed promptly. Christchurch Court D C51 C08 S12742 Christchurch Court V236038 120705 Stage 4.doc Version 1.40 Page 20 Commission for Social Care Inspection Northamptonshire Area Office Newland House, First Floor Campbell Square Northants, NN1 3EB 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 Christchurch Court D C51 C08 S12742 Christchurch Court V236038 120705 Stage 4.doc Version 1.40 Page 21 - 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!