Inspection on 10/07/06 for Community Resettlement Project

This inspection was carried out on 10th July 2006.

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. These are things the inspector asked to be changed, but found they had not done. The inspector also made 7 statutory requirements (actions the home must comply with) as a result of this inspection.

Other inspections for this house

Community Resettlement Project 04/04/08

Community Resettlement Project 10/08/07

Community Resettlement Project 01/12/05

Community Resettlement Project 02/04/05

Community Resettlement Project 01/11/04

Community Resettlement Project 15/04/04

Similar services:

Townley Road, 2-3

Foxley Lane (121a)

Tudor Lodge

Stacey Street Nursing Home

Delrose House Ltd

Clovelly House Residential Home Ltd

Abbey Road [53]

Cherry Tree House

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

CARE HOME ADULTS 18-65 Community Resettlement Project 24-28 Argyle Street Kings Cross London WC1H 8EN Lead Inspector Pearlet Storrod Unannounced Inspection 10th July 2006 10:00 Community Resettlement Project DS0000010342.V287978.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 Community Resettlement Project DS0000010342.V287978.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. Community Resettlement Project DS0000010342.V287978.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 3 SERVICE INFORMATION Name of service Community Resettlement Project Address 24-28 Argyle Street Kings Cross London WC1H 8EN 020 7278 3629 0207 813 9776 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) Community Housing Association Mr Michael Kerr Care Home 18 Category(ies) of Mental disorder, excluding learning disability or registration, with number dementia (18) of places Community Resettlement Project DS0000010342.V287978.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 4 SERVICE INFORMATION Conditions of registration: Date of last inspection 1st December 2005 Brief Description of the Service: Community Housing Association manages the Community Resettlement Project (CRP). This organisation has considerable experience in the housing sector and provide a wide range of care and support services. The home itself provides care and support to adults with mental health needs. It is situated in a residential/commercial street very close to Kings Cross Station. The property is three adjoining houses. House number 24 is registered to accommodate five women; house number 26 is the office-cum-staff area and house number 28 is registered to accommodate thirteen male service users. The houses are interconnected. Accommodation for service users is provided in single rooms, each is furnished with a fridge and a wash hand basin. Communal facilities include toilets, bathrooms, kitchens and lounges. There are two gardens to the rear of the premises. The houses are not suitable for service users with mobility problems and as they are listed buildings, alterations and adaptations are unlikely. The focus of the CRP is on rehabilitation and resettlement. Residents are to be motivated to be able to cook and undertake cleaning and laundry or improve these skills. An average stay is twenty-two months although residents can be there for longer. Prospective service users must have the ability or at least be motivated with regard to social skills, shopping and budgeting, self-catering, domestic cleaning, laundry, personal care and self-medication. The fee charged for the service is £390.00 Community Resettlement Project DS0000010342.V287978.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 5 SUMMARY This is an overview of what the inspector found during the inspection. This report is of an unannounced inspection, which involved scrutiny of the records, policies and procedures, discussion with some service users and with staff, attending a handover meeting and a service users meeting as part of the process and a tour of the building. Two staff members assisted the inspector in the manager’s absence. What the service does well: What has improved since the last inspection? Since the previous inspection took place, the medication policy and procedure has been amended as per the requirement. Some staff have now received Community Resettlement Project DS0000010342.V287978.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 6 training with regard to the protection of vulnerable adults; some minor outstanding repairs have been addressed. 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. Community Resettlement Project DS0000010342.V287978.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 Community Resettlement Project DS0000010342.V287978.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 at least once during a 12 month period. JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for the following standard(s): 1 and 2 The quality outcome in this area is adequate and this judgment is made using available evidence, including information deriving from this inspection. Sufficient information is provided to service users enabling them to make informed choices about whether to live at the home. Service users individual aspirations and needs are assessed prior to moving into the home and after moving in. However, the home has been experiencing difficulty in moving on those service users who are no longer considered suitably placed and requires higher level of support than the home is capable of providing. EVIDENCE: A Statement of Purpose and Service User Guide is made available to prospective service users upon request prior to living at the home. The statement of purpose though extensively written, needs to be reviewed with regard to the staff structure since the home no longer employs an administrator and the registered manager previously employed has left the service. The statement of purpose must be revised in this respect. Each service users had an assessment of needs conducted and these were comprehensively written; the information gathered is used to formulate individuals support plans. Risk assessments are apparent in relation to care but not in regard to individual service users’ environment. Service users are required to be more self reliant, necessitating the preparation of their own meals and cooking for themselves and it is important that risk assessments are conducted individually in this respect, particular since reminders are put up on Community Resettlement Project DS0000010342.V287978.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 9 a notice board to remind service users to turn off the cookers. It was noted that one service user was no longer suitably placed and staff were in the process of arranging a move to more suitable accommodation but this was proving difficult. Community Resettlement Project DS0000010342.V287978.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 10 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 and 9 The quality outcome in this area is adequate and this judgment is made using available evidence, which include information deriving from this inspection. Service users assessed and changing needs and personal goals are reflected in their support plans, some of which were not updated. Service users are consulted and supported about all aspects of life at the home and to take risks relative to independent living. EVIDENCE: Identified goals though recorded, are inconsistently addressed. Out of the number of support plans examined, one met the requirements with timescales for the progress of achievements to be checked for each set goal; the support plan was also signed and dated by both the key worker and the service user. The other support plans remained outstanding to be reviewed with no timescales for review of the identified goals, no signature of the service user or person accountable for the review of the support plan. Each service user is consulted about their living arrangements in the home. They are supported in various ways depending upon their individual wishes and aspirations. In discussion with an individual, the inspector was told that staff are supportive, that they have assisted him to move forwards regarding the Community Resettlement Project DS0000010342.V287978.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 11 possibility of securing council accommodation, and that he was looking forward to moving on to more independent living. One particular service user who volunteered to take the notes of the service users meeting was instrumental in ensuring that individual service users participated in the arrangements for the impending barbecue; she encouraged individual service users to assume responsibility for certain roles and functions with the emphasis of achieving their set objectives. The inspector observed a remarkable achievement. Risks assessments have been carried out as part of service users independent lifestyle development, such as shopping and participating in activities associated with their care and support arrangements. No risk assessments are conducted on service users individual personal environment. One service user confirmed at the service users meeting that he had been given a microwave, which he users in his room. Staff members did not appear to have had any previous knowledge or awareness about the microwave. A female service user reported that the service provided was good but that her room was too small. The room was observed and space was limited, as the service user has been accumulating furniture and other objects in readiness for moving to her new home. Risk assessments must be conducted relative to service users individual environment and used alongside the support plans. Community Resettlement Project DS0000010342.V287978.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 12 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, 15, 16 and 17 The quality outcome in this are is good and this judgment is made using the available evidence, which includes information and observation deriving from the inspection. There are opportunities for service users to participate in age appropriate and cultural activities; service users cultural aspects are not obvious in the assessment and support plans. Systems exist for service users social inclusion service users relatives to have an involvement as necessary. The previous report required that more recording pertaining to service users dietary needs are made. EVIDENCE: There is evidence to demonstrate that service users are involved in appropriate activities. Service users from different cultural backgrounds appear to make their own individual arrangements relative to their cultural needs and requirements. Cultural activities were not evidenced in the assessment of needs and support plans. Service users all have an assortment of activities, in which they participate and they are involved in drawing up their individualized programmes, including social and leisure activities and tasks associated with daily life skills. Community Resettlement Project DS0000010342.V287978.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 13 The inspector had the benefit of attending a service users meeting. The agenda was drawn up at the meeting with service users participation. One individual volunteered to chair the meeting and another chose to take the notes. A prolonged discussion emanated about the arrangements pertaining to the forthcoming barbecue and individuals volunteered one another for various tasks to ensure achievement of their set objective. Those in attendance took control and shared responsibilities regarding the type of food to purchase, the shopping, and clearing up arrangements. They also discussed an approaching holiday and the arrangements around this amongst other things, some of which are included in the environment section of this report. The meeting was service user led and positive. These weekly meetings were felt by staff to be too regular and a proposal was made for the meetings to be scheduled at two weekly intervals instead. A service user with the talent of an artist showed off his paintings with pride. He was encouraged to consider putting his artwork on public display, which he is not averse to and staff members demonstrated a willingness to support him in this respect. Mutual respect between service users and staff were apparent. In the previous report the inspector raised an issues that nutrition must be discussed and recorded in the monthly key working meetings, though discussion takes place, there is no proper monitoring and no evidence to ensure that service users eat nutritious and healthy meals. A male service user with a different ethnicity and cultural background was asked about his meal arrangements and he asserted that he would purchase and cook his own cultural meals. However, the refrigerator in his room was dysfunctional on the inspection day and was empty. The communal refrigerator in the kitchen was also empty and it was difficult to see how staff supported the service user in this respect. A way forward would be for staff to support individual service users to prepare and plan their individual meals and then to monitor and record these. Community Resettlement Project DS0000010342.V287978.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 14 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, 19 and 20 The quality outcome in this area is good and this judgment is made using available evidence, including information and observation deriving from this inspection. Personal support is not provided in this home and efforts are made that ensures service users physical and emotional health needs are met. Medication is managed in a way that promotes good health. EVIDENCE: Service users are supported to do as much for themselves as possible and are encouraged and supported accordingly. There is evidence to demonstrate that individual service users are appropriately supported about matters relative to their emotional health requirements. The medication policy has been reviewed as requested in the previous inspection report and the home endeavours to ensure that service users medical needs are appropriately met for all service users. Those who self medicate have appropriate lockable facilities to secure their medication and risks assessments are in place. An agreement is signed by service users willing to consent to staff assisting them to manage their medication. Community Resettlement Project DS0000010342.V287978.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 at least once during a 12 month period. JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for the following standard(s): 22 and 23 The quality outcome in this area is adequate and this judgment is made using available evidence, which include information and observation emanating from this inspection. There is a clear complaints system in place and service users are protected by the policies, procedures and practices of the home. The Adult Protection Policy document from Camden is not yet obtained. EVIDENCE: The complaints log was examined and there existed only one complaint from a service user, which was confirmed as satisfactorily addressed. However, the complaint took a long time for a resolution to be reached and the decision and outcome were not recorded. The regulation report for the previous month indicated that two services users had raised concerns about their food being stolen from the women’s’ kitchen; these issues of concern were not recorded in the complaints or incident book. These matters must be followed up and appropriately addressed to prevent recurrence. The number of staff files examined clearly demonstrates that the necessary training in regard to the protection of vulnerable adults mentioned in the previous inspection report has begun and is ongoing. A copy of Camden and Islington Councils’ Adult Protection Policy and Procedures should be obtained to ensure they coincide with the home’s own procedures. Community Resettlement Project DS0000010342.V287978.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 at least once during a 12 month period. JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for the following standard(s): 24 and 30 The quality outcome in this area is adequate and this judgment is made using available evidence, including information and observation during this inspection process. The home provides an environment that is reasonably pleasant and comfortable in some areas but attention in the communal areas is needed to ensure that general maintenance is adequately addressed. A satisfactory standard of cleanliness continues to be maintained. EVIDENCE: In some areas of the home the physical standards needs to be enhanced to present a more comfortable and pleasant surrounding; an example is the badly worn and damaged carpet through the hall and staircase areas of the building. A concern was expressed that the electrical wiring system might be overloading. At the service users meeting some service users talked about the general lack of electric current that impact on their electrical equipments such as music systems, refrigerators washing machine throughout the day and they also reported that light bulbs were blown fairly frequently. One service user confirmed his pleasure with the service on offer but stated his dissatisfaction with the poor condition of his carpet, which he asserted was like that when he initially took up residence. Community Resettlement Project DS0000010342.V287978.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 17 The electrical wiring system must be checked and a copy of the report issued to the Commission. The upstairs kitchen in number 28 is extremely hot and service users and staff confirmed that they do not use the facilities there because of this. The boiler is said to be located in the kitchen area. The manager could explore alternative use for the room since it is rarely used, if at all, and the home is already short of storage space; if storage space is envisaged as an alternative use, then a visit from the environmental health or fire brigade should be consulted in the first instance. Staff also reported that the extractor fan in the ground floor bathroom in house 28 remains defective since January 2005 and this must be addressed, as no natural ventilation exist to this room. The home is owned by Community Housing Association and it has been revealed at this and previous inspections that a general upkeep of the internal standards of the home is required in various areas; generally the home was clean and hygienic. Community Resettlement Project DS0000010342.V287978.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 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, 34 and 35 The quality outcome in this area is good and the judgment is made using available evidence, which includes information and observation deriving from this inspection. Staff are equipped with the necessary skills and training to meet service users needs and service uses are protected by the home’s recruitment and operational practices. EVIDENCE: Staff appear to be appropriately trained, competent and have an understanding of their roles and responsibilities regarding service users assessed needs. A robust recruitment and selection policy and procedure is in place and the appropriate checks such as references, CRB and POVA are validated. The majority of the support staff have completed the NVQ level 3 qualification course and there is evidence that some staff have attending other individual staff have attended training identified through their supervision sessions. Community Resettlement Project DS0000010342.V287978.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 19 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 , 40 and 42 The quality outcome in this area is good and this judgment is made using available evidence, which includes information and observation deriving from this inspection. Service users continue to benefit from a home that is managed well but the policies and procedures are mainly drawn up from an organisational perspective. Service users opinions are sought about the provision of services and staff make attempts to ensure service users health, safety and welfare are promoted and protected. Line of accountability in absence of the registered manager is unclear. EVIDENCE: As stated in the previous inspection report the registered manager is fairly new in post and has not yet undertaken the NVQ level 4 in care and management and he asserts that he is scheduled for registration on the course in the near future. He demonstrates competence and experience in the job. The responsible individual visit the home each month to monitor progress in the home and a copy of the report is sent to the Commission. These reports are used to inform and improve standards in the home. It should be noted Community Resettlement Project DS0000010342.V287978.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 20 that many of the policies and procedures including the induction training for support staff are devised from a corporate perspective and these require tailoring to the service. The manager confirmed that he has discussed this with his manager who is currently exploring ways to address this. Service users views are canvassed via their key working sessions, the monthly monitoring visits and an annual questionnaire to obtain their opinions. A number of health and safety records were examined and these were satisfactory with one exception that the fire extinguishers had had not received their annual inspections and the manager, having verified this, confirmed that he would pursue this with the contractors. As mentioned earlier, a copy of the inspection report for the fixed electrical wiring should be issued to the Commission. The registered manager works at another service in Newham one day per week and support staff act up as person in charge, however the policy for line accountability in absence of the registered manager makes reference to the care manager acting up and these circumstances, which needs clarity. The issue regarding the registered manager overseeing another service elsewhere is being separately addressed. Community Resettlement Project DS0000010342.V287978.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 21 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 2 2 3 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 2 23 2 ENVIRONMENT Standard No Score 24 1 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 2 3 X 2 X LIFESTYLES Standard No Score 11 X 12 3 13 3 14 X 15 3 16 3 17 2 PERSONAL AND HEALTHCARE SUPPORT Standard No 18 19 20 21 Score 3 3 3 X 3 X 3 2 X 2 x Community Resettlement Project DS0000010342.V287978.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 22 yes Are there any outstanding requirements from the last inspection? Community Resettlement Project DS0000010342.V287978.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 23 Community Resettlement Project DS0000010342.V287978.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 24 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 YA1 Regulation 4 Requirement The registered person must ensure that the statement of purpose is amended to reflect the name of the new manager and the current staff structure Timescale for action 05/09/06 2. YA6 and YA9 14/15 3. YA17 16(2)(i) The registered person must 10/10/06 ensure that risk assessments are conducted of service users personal environment and that all service users support plans are updated and reviewed in a consistent manner Nutrition must be a standard item for discussion at the monthly key working meetings. 05/09/06 Key workers must support service users to prepare and plan their meals and to monitor and record these. The monitoring and recording of service users meals is restated. Is being restated as the old timescale was the 31/12/05. The registered person must 05/09/06 ensure that service users complaints are dealt with in a reasonable timescale set by the provider and that all complaints or concerns notified by service users are recorded and acted upon The registered provider must 10/10/06 ensure that the remaining items listed for repair in the previous report are dealt with and this requirement is repeated. The previous timescale was 30/01/06. The registered provider must 10/10/06 also ensure that the items DS0000010342.V287978.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 25 outlined on pages 17 and 18 of this report are satisfactorily addressed. 4 YA22 22 YA24 5 23(2)(b) 6 YA42 23(4) Community Resettlement Project 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 YA23 Good Practice Recommendations The registered person should ensure that the home’s adult protection policy is updated and that a copy of Camden’s Adult Protection Policy and Procedure is obtained to ensure that the document belonging to the host Council coincides with that of the registered provider The registered person should ensure that the home review a number of the organisation’s policies and procedures to fit the service 2 YA40 Community Resettlement Project DS0000010342.V287978.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 26 Commission for Social Care Inspection Camden Local Office Centro 4 20-23 Mandela Street London NW1 0DU 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 Community Resettlement Project DS0000010342.V287978.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 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!