Inspection on 03/11/05 for Colonia Court

This inspection was carried out on 3rd 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 there to be outstanding requirements from the previous inspection report but made no statutory requirements on the home.

Other inspections for this house

Colonia Court 15/12/09

Colonia Court 17/09/08

Colonia Court 25/09/07

Colonia Court 11/10/06

Colonia Court 14/03/06

Colonia Court 10/03/06

Colonia Court 10/01/06

Colonia Court 19/12/05

Colonia Court 15/03/05

Colonia Court 01/02/05

Colonia Court 13/01/05

Colonia Court 09/12/04

Colonia Court 09/11/04

Colonia Court 13/07/04

Colonia Court 07/07/04

Colonia Court 22/06/04

Colonia Court 15/06/04

Similar services:

Claremont House

Chesham House

Oak Ridge

Argyll House

Sun Court Nursing Home

Ashville House

Bramley Avenue (73)

Bilney Hall

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

CARE HOMES FOR OLDER PEOPLE Colonia Court St Andrews Avenue Colchester Essex CO4 3AN Lead Inspector Francesca Halliday Unannounced Inspection at Paxman House 3 - 7 November 2005 09:00 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 Colonia Court DS0000015331.V263703.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 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. Colonia Court DS0000015331.V263703.R01.S.doc Version 5.0 Page 3 SERVICE INFORMATION Name of service Colonia Court Address St Andrews Avenue Colchester Essex CO4 3AN 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) 01206 791952 01206 794230 BUPA Care Homes (CRHCare) Limited No. 2741070 Care Home 110 Category(ies) of Dementia - over 65 years of age (30), Mental registration, with number disorder, excluding learning disability or of places dementia (20), Mental Disorder, excluding learning disability or dementia - over 65 years of age (1), Old age, not falling within any other category (30), Physical disability (3), Physical disability over 65 years of age (30) Colonia Court DS0000015331.V263703.R01.S.doc Version 5.0 Page 4 SERVICE INFORMATION Conditions of registration: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. Amber Lodge Persons of either sex, under the age of 65 years, who require nursing care by reason of Huntington`s Disease (not to exceed 20 persons) Persons of either sex, under the age of 65 years, who require care by reason of Huntington`s Disease (not to exceed 20 persons) One service user over the age of 65 years who requires care by reason of Huntington`s Disease Mumford House Persons of either sex, aged 65 years and over, who require care by reason of dementia (not to exceed 30 persons) Blomfield House Persons of either sex, aged 65 years and over, who require care by reason of old age only (not to exceed 30 persons) Paxman House Persons of either sex, aged 50 years and over, who require nursing care by reason of a physical disability (not to exceed 3 persons) Persons of either sex, aged 65 years and over, who require care by reason of a physical disability (not to exceed 30 persons) One service user under the age of 50 years, whose name is known to the Commission, who requires nursing care by reason of a physical disability The total number of service users accommodated not to exceed 110 persons 9th November 2004 Date of last inspection Brief Description of the Service: Paxman House is registered to provide nursing care for up to 30 residents over the age of 65 and up to 3 residents over the age of 50, who require nursing care because of a physical illness or disability. Paxman House has 30 single rooms, all with en-suite toilet and basin. The home has wide range of communal rooms and is all on one level. Paxman House is one of four houses at Colonia Court Residential and Nursing Home. Each house is staffed on an individual basis and the central services include administration, laundry and kitchen. The home has a spacious car park and a guest flat available. Colonia Court is set in a residential area and is approximately one mile from Colchester town centre and two miles from the railway station. Buses run along St Andrews Avenue outside the home. Colonia Court DS0000015331.V263703.R01.S.doc Version 5.0 Page 5 SUMMARY This is an overview of what the inspector found during the inspection. This unannounced inspection visit was to Paxman House only. The inspection took place on 3rd November 2005 and lasted 8 hours 30 minutes. The inspection process included discussions with 5 residents, 2 relatives and 3 members of staff. The premises and a sample of records were inspected. Further information was requested at the time of inspection and this was received on 4th November. A discussion was held with the manager on 7th November and this concluded the inspection process. 20 of the 38 standards were inspected: 8 met the standards, 11 standards had minor shortfalls and 1 standards was not met. The judgements made within the report are based on the observations and evidence gathered during this inspection. What the service does well: What has improved since the last inspection? What they could do better: Although residents and relatives considered that the standard of care was good, the majority felt that there was a lack of activities and social contact. A relative said “staff don’t provide mental stimulation, they don’t have the time to chat, there’s not enough time given to activities”. A number of residents said that communication could be a problem, and that they sometimes had Colonia Court DS0000015331.V263703.R01.S.doc Version 5.0 Page 6 problems both making themselves understood, and also understanding staff whose first language was not English. A relative considered that the standard of cleanliness was not consistent. Training was being given a high priority, and the manager was in the process of organising outstanding training. 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. Colonia Court DS0000015331.V263703.R01.S.doc Version 5.0 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 Colonia Court DS0000015331.V263703.R01.S.doc Version 5.0 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 at least once during a 12 month period. JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for the following standard(s): Standards 1, 3 and 4 (standard 6 not applicable) The information provided by the home enables prospective residents and their representatives to make informed choices about the suitability of the home. Residents were happy with the assessment process prior to admission. Staff have insufficient training to provide them with the skills needed to manage challenging behaviour. EVIDENCE: The home has a range of information for prospective residents and their representatives. Staff used the BASOLL assessment (Behaviour Assessment Scale of Later Life), and an activities of daily living assessment as preadmission assessment tools. The assessments sampled were generally well completed. Residents expressed satisfaction with the assessment process. There was evidence of appropriate re-assessment and involvement of the local mental health services for a resident who had developed challenging behaviour. Staff confirmed that an alternative placement was being sought. Staff were generally experienced in care of the older person, and the conditions of old age. Staff confirmed that some residents had symptoms of early dementia, and expressed occasional challenging behaviour. However, Colonia Court DS0000015331.V263703.R01.S.doc Version 5.0 Page 9 only one member of staff had received training in dementia care and one in the management of challenging behaviour, despite this having been a requirement in the last report. Colonia Court DS0000015331.V263703.R01.S.doc Version 5.0 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 at least once during a 12 month period. JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for the following standard(s): Standards 7, 8, and 10 Residents’ health needs are met and they are involved in decisions about their care. Residents consider that they are treated with respect; however, there are some areas where the protection of privacy and dignity could be improved. EVIDENCE: The standard of care documentation had improved since the last inspection. The home had recently introduced a system of “the resident of the day”, whereby each resident was being reassessed once a month, and their care records updated. One of the nurses was being given protected time each day, to discuss the care and care plans with the resident (and relatives where appropriate). Care plans were generally of a good standard. Some good evaluations of care and care needs were seen. However, other evaluations needed to be expanded and provide more evidence of residents’ involvement. Some residents did not have a care plan about their emotional care, social contact and mental stimulation. Social care plans and evaluations were not linked to the role and input of the activity coordinator. One resident spoken with felt that they were fully involved in decisions about their care, and how their care was carried out. A discussion was held about the benefit of directly involving the residents in the development and review of their care plans and Colonia Court DS0000015331.V263703.R01.S.doc Version 5.0 Page 11 recording the evaluation from their point of view, as well as recording the nursing assessment. The standard of some daily progress records was good; others needed to be more informative, particularly about residents’ psychological health, mood and how they had spent their day. There was a range of risk assessments in place, and the sample seen had been regularly updated. Some general risk assessments, which were not personalised to the individual resident, were seen. Staff confirmed that very few residents suffered from falls, and that the accident rate was very low. One resident had been admitted with a pressure sore, which was now healing. Residents said that the notices in their rooms giving the name of their named nurse and key workers were generally out of date, and included a number of staff who had left the home some months previously. Staff said that they would update this following the inspection. Residents and relatives spoken with considered that the standard of care was very good. Two residents confirmed that their condition and overall health had improved since admission. There was evidence of some rehabilitation. A discussion was held with some of the senior staff about the importance of systematic rehabilitation to maximise residents’ mobility and dexterity, to enable them to remain independent for as long as possible and to reduce the risk of falls. Residents said that they could see the GP when they had any health concerns. There was evidence of support from local health professionals, and appropriate referrals to local hospitals for diagnosis and treatment. Staff said that they had excellent support from local GPs. There was evidence that residents saw a chiropodist, and had dental and optical checkups. A relative considered that staff kept them fully informed about any health concerns or changes in treatment. Medicines were not fully inspected at this visit. However, it was noted that some prescription only medicines were not locked up in residents’ rooms and that the majority of topical creams and ointments, which have a limited shelf life when opened, were not dated on opening. A resident who was administering a number of their own medicines, did not have the medicines in a lockable drawer. The resident said that they did not want the medicines in a locked drawer; however, there was no documentation or risk assessment to this effect. The majority of residents said that staff always knocked on their door and waited to be asked to enter, and treated their room as their private space. However, a relative considered that staff did not always preserve residents’ dignity by covering them when they became exposed during hoisting. Some notices were on display in residents’ rooms giving details of an aspect of care required. Some care information was on display in bathrooms, and not always fully recorded in the care records. Some information about care was on display on the notice board in the staff office, which was also used on occasions as a meeting room with relatives. Colonia Court DS0000015331.V263703.R01.S.doc Version 5.0 Page 12 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 at least once during a 12 month period. JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for the following standard(s): Standards 12, 13 and 15 Residents consider that the opportunities for social activities and the stimulation of hobbies is limited. Visitors are made very welcome, but links to the community need to be developed. Residents are generally happy with the quality of food and the choices at mealtimes. EVIDENCE: A number of residents said that activities and social stimulation was very limited. The majority of residents said that staff did not have the time to sit and chat. A resident said “The staff are very good, but they don’t have time to chat”. Another said “there’s nothing to occupy me here”. The activity coordinator worked three days a week, but there was no evidence of activities on the other four days. Some residents did not have an assessment of their interests and hobbies. There were some records of activities, but they were very limited, and did not give a clear indication of the social contact and activities for each resident. The activity coordinator was carrying out some care duties during her time on Paxman House. A discussion was held about the role of activities coordinator, and the fact that training would be required for the post holder and the care staff. Visiting was unrestricted, and residents and relatives spoken with said that visitors were made to feel very welcome. One relative said that they found the Colonia Court DS0000015331.V263703.R01.S.doc Version 5.0 Page 13 resident/relative meetings helpful, but said that there had not been a meeting for a long time. The manager said that the last meeting had been in April 2005, and that another one would be set up as soon as possible. There was little evidence of links with the local community. One resident who needed full assistance with meals, said that the staff managed this very well and took their time. Residents were generally very happy with the standard of meals. They confirmed that choices and alternatives were available, and that they ate their meals where it suited them. There was evidence that staff took trouble to meet residents’ specific needs and preferences. A number of residents said that the soup was particularly good. Residents confirmed that staff gave them drinks and snacks if they were wakeful during the night. Colonia Court DS0000015331.V263703.R01.S.doc Version 5.0 Page 14 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 inspected at least once during a 12 month period. JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for the following standard(s): Standards 16 and 18 Residents and relatives have confidence that concerns are promptly addressed. Staff have a greater understanding of the types of abuse that can occur. EVIDENCE: The home had complaints procedures in place. Residents and relatives were happy that staff addressed any concerns raised. A resident said “if I have any concerns they are sorted out quickly”. However, there was no evidence that staff were documenting verbal concerns/complaints and the actions taken to address them. This could result in the head of care and manager being unaware of concerns raised by residents and relatives. The home had a policy on the protection of vulnerable adults (POVA), which included a whistle blowing policy. The majority of staff had completed training in the protection of vulnerable adults. One member of staff, who had missed the training due to sickness, was booked for POVA training following the inspection. Staff had a greater understanding of the various types of abuse that could occur, and the actions to take if abuse was suspected, than at previous inspections. Colonia Court DS0000015331.V263703.R01.S.doc Version 5.0 Page 15 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 at least once during a 12 month period. JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for the following standard(s): Standards 20, 22, 24 and 26 Residents do not have access to some communal rooms. Residents have their own possessions around them in their rooms. The majority of residents consider that staff answer call bells promptly, however, some residents feel that the response times need on occasions to be improved. Standards of cleanliness are not of a consistent standard. EVIDENCE: The home has a large open plan lounge/diner with conservatory attached, which has been divided into different seating areas. The two small sitting rooms were out of use for residents. One was being used as a staff room and one as a storage room. The change of use of these rooms had not been discussed with the Commission. The majority of residents said that staff answered calls fairly promptly. A resident said that staff checked whether the call was urgent and said that the “response time had improved a great deal”. However, one resident said that they sometimes had to wait for staff to assist them to the toilet and were Colonia Court DS0000015331.V263703.R01.S.doc Version 5.0 Page 16 concerned that occasionally “they take so long I wet myself”. This resident said that they had on one occasion been left without a call bell for three hours (however, it was not possible to establish whether this event occurred some time in the past). All residents were in single rooms with an en-suite facility. The rooms were generally very well personalised to residents’ tastes and preferences. Paxman House was generally clean on the day of this unannounced inspection, although a number of the vinyl floors in residents’ rooms were noted to be very sticky underfoot, and some carpets were in need of attention. A relative considered that the standard of cleanliness varied, and considered that the carpets should be cleaned more frequently. One resident’s bed smelt extremely strongly of urine, even though staff had made it that morning. This was addressed at the time of inspection. All residents spoken with said that they were happy with the laundry service. Colonia Court DS0000015331.V263703.R01.S.doc Version 5.0 Page 17 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 at least once during a 12 month period. JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for the following standard(s): Standards 27, 28 and 30 Residents generally consider that staff meet their care needs very well. Although some residents find communication difficult with staff whose first language is not English. The home has a staff training programme, which is being developed further. EVIDENCE: The minimum agreed staffing levels on Paxman House were six staff in the morning five staff in the afternoon and evening and three staff at night. According to the rota these levels were generally being met and occasionally exceeded, when occupancy and dependency were high. On the morning of this unannounced inspection there were seven staff on duty. Staff confirmed that the dependencies of residents at the time of inspection were generally very high. Staff were advised that the rota must identify staff by their initials and surname and not just by their first name. Residents and relatives praised the staff and said that the standard of care was very good. However, a few residents said that they had problems understanding some of the staff and making them understand their care needs, when English was not the staff member’s first language. The home has an induction and staff development programme. Four staff had completed National Vocational Qualification at level 2. Five staff had applied to start the course and were waiting to hear whether they had been successful in obtaining a place. Three staff had attended a training session on diabetes, two staff had attended a session on nutrition and two staff had attended a session Colonia Court DS0000015331.V263703.R01.S.doc Version 5.0 Page 18 on bereavement. The manager said that he was hoping to increase the level of clinical training and encourage each of the nurses to act as a clinical lead and resource for Paxman House. Colonia Court DS0000015331.V263703.R01.S.doc Version 5.0 Page 19 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 at least once during a 12 month period. JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for the following standard(s): Standards 33 and 38 Residents provide regular feedback on the quality of services and care. Some staff are in need of training in safe working practices. EVIDENCE: The home has a quality assurance policy and systems in place to monitor the quality of services and care. An independent company carries out a satisfaction survey on a quarterly basis. The BUPA quality team carry out audits and “spot checks” on the Colonia Court site. The heads of care at Colonia Court carry out internal audits of services and care on other houses. Six staff had completed a “personal best” course. The course encourages staff to reflect on the care and services they provide, and to identify areas where they can improve and provide their personal best. Staff were advised that rooms where oxygen is in use must be identified by a sign on the door, to alert the fire brigade to the presence of oxygen in the event of a fire. The majority of staff had completed fire, food hygiene and Colonia Court DS0000015331.V263703.R01.S.doc Version 5.0 Page 20 moving and handling training. However, six staff were due a moving and handling update, two of whom had not had an update for two and a half years. A number of staff were in need of health and safety, infection control and Control of Substances Hazardous to Health (COSHH) training. The manager said that some training was behind schedule as he had been off sick, but that regular training sessions had now been arranged. Colonia Court DS0000015331.V263703.R01.S.doc Version 5.0 Page 21 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 3 x 3 2 x N/A HEALTH AND PERSONAL CARE Standard No Score 7 2 8 2 9 x 10 2 11 x DAILY LIFE AND SOCIAL ACTIVITIES Standard No Score 12 1 13 2 14 x 15 3 COMPLAINTS AND PROTECTION Standard No Score 16 2 17 x 18 3 x 2 x 2 x 3 x 2 STAFFING Standard No Score 27 2 28 3 29 x 30 3 MANAGEMENT AND ADMINISTRATION Standard No 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 Score x x 3 x x x x 2 Colonia Court DS0000015331.V263703.R01.S.doc Version 5.0 Page 22 Are there any outstanding requirements from the last inspection? Yes STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS This section sets out the actions, which must be taken so that the registered person/s meets the Care Standards Act 2000, Care Homes Regulations 2001 and the National Minimum Standards. The Registered Provider(s) must comply with the given timescales. No. 1 Standard OP4 Regulation 18(1)(c) Requirement The registered person must ensure that all care staff receive training in the management of challenging behaviour. Requirement in previous report – timescale of 1.02.05 not met. The registered person must ensure that all care staff receive training in dementia care. Requirement in previous report – timescale of 1.04.05 not met. The registered person must ensure that care plans cover all assessed needs (this particularly refers to social, emotional and psychological care and systematic rehabilitation), and are linked to the role and input of the activity coordinator. Informed at the time of inspection. The registered person must ensure that the daily records contain information about residents’ psychological health, mood and how they have spent their day. Informed at the time of inspection. The registered person must DS0000015331.V263703.R01.S.doc Timescale for action 01/02/06 2 OP4 18(1)(c) 01/03/06 3 OP7 OP12 15 01/01/06 4 OP8 OP12 13(1)(b) 01/12/05 5 OP9 13(2) 01/12/05 Page 23 Colonia Court Version 5.0 6 OP9 13(2) 7 OP9 13(2) 8 OP10 12(4)(a) 9 OP12 16(2) (m)(n) 10 OP12 16(2) (m)(n) 11 OP12 18(1)(c) ensure that prescription only medicines are kept locked up, and that risk assessments are carried out when residents choose to do otherwise. Informed at the time of inspection. The registered person must ensure that medicines, with a limited shelf life when opened, are dated when first used. Informed at the time of inspection. The person registered must ensure that medicines are labelled on the container as well as the outer packaging. (This previous requirement was not assessed and is taken forward to the next inspection) The registered person must ensure that care is always carried out in a manner that preserves residents’ privacy and dignity, and ensure that personal information about residents is not on display in the home. Informed at the time of inspection. The registered person must ensure that the activity coordinator does not carry out care duties. Informed at the time of inspection. The person registered must ensure that there is a sufficient range of activities to suit individual needs, and ensure that activities are held on a daily basis. Informed at the time of inspection. This is a repeat requirement, timescale of 1.01.05 not met. The person registered must ensure that the activity coordinator and care staff receive training in the range of activities appropriate for older DS0000015331.V263703.R01.S.doc 01/12/05 01/12/05 03/11/05 03/11/05 01/12/05 01/02/06 Colonia Court Version 5.0 Page 24 12 13 OP12 OP16 16(2) (m)(n) 22 14 OP20 23(2)(e) 15 OP12(4)(a) OP22 12(3) (4)(a) 16 OP26 23(2)(d) 17 OP27 17(2) 18 OP27 12(1) people. The person registered must ensure that links to the local community are developed. The person registered must ensure that verbal complaints and concerns are documented, with the actions taken to address the concerns raised. Informed at the time of inspection. The person registered must ensure that residents’ communal rooms are available for their use at all times, and that any proposed change of use is discussed with the Commission. Informed at the time of inspection. The person registered must ensure that staff answer call bells promptly when residents have concerns about maintaining continence and preserving their dignity. Informed at the time of inspection. Requirement in previous reports – timescales of 1.09.03, 13.07,04, 9.11.04 not met. The person registered must ensure that standards of cleanliness are maintained at a consistent standard. Informed at the time of inspection. Requirement in previous report – timescale of 9.11.04 not met. The person registered must ensure that the rota identifies staff by their full name. Informed at the time of inspection. The person registered must ensure that staff are only employed if their command of English is good, and must inform the Commission by 01.01.06, what steps are being taken to improve communication skills for staff whose first language is not DS0000015331.V263703.R01.S.doc 01/01/06 03/11/05 01/12/05 03/11/05 03/11/05 03/11/05 03/11/05 Colonia Court Version 5.0 Page 25 19 OP38 13(5) 20 OP38 13(3) 21 OP38 13(4) 22 23 OP38 OP38 13(4) 23(4) English. Informed at the time of inspection. The registered person must ensure that all staff receive moving and handling training. Requirement in previous reports - timescales of 1.11.04 and 1.01.05 not met. The registered person must ensure that all staff receive infection control training. Requirement in previous reports – timescales of 31.12.03, 1.11.04, 1.04.05 not met. The registered person must ensure that all staff receive health and safety training. Requirement in previous reports – timescales of 31.12.03, 1.11.04, 1.05.05 not met. The registered person must ensure that all staff receive COSHH training. The registered person must ensure that a notice is placed on all doors where oxygen is being stored or used, in order to alert fire officers in the event of a fire. Informed at the time of inspection. 01/01/06 01/03/06 01/03/06 01/03/06 01/12/05 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 Colonia Court DS0000015331.V263703.R01.S.doc Version 5.0 Page 26 Commission for Social Care Inspection Colchester Local Office 1st Floor, Fairfax House Causton Road Colchester Essex CO1 1RJ 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 Colonia Court DS0000015331.V263703.R01.S.doc Version 5.0 Page 27 - 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!