Inspection on 12/03/07 for Connell Court

This inspection was carried out on 12th March 2007.

CSCI has not published a star rating for this report, though using similar criteria we estimate that the report is Excellent. 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

Connell Court 30/01/06

Connell Court 24/08/05

Connell Court 05/01/05

Connell Court 17/08/04

Similar services:

Chirnside House

Keer Sands Residential Home

Ruskin Lodge

Bushell House

Langrigg House

Parkside

Dystlegh Grange

Thornton Lodge

Extracts from inspection reports are licensed from CQC, this page was updated on 23/11/2008.

CARE HOMES FOR OLDER PEOPLE Connell Court 20 Weld Road Southport Merseyside PR8 2DL Lead Inspector Daniel Hamilton Unannounced Inspection 12th March 2007 09:30 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 Connell Court DS0000005346.V373057.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 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. Connell Court DS0000005346.V373057.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 3 SERVICE INFORMATION Name of service Connell Court Address 20 Weld Road Southport Merseyside PR8 2DL 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) 01704 560651 home.fxg@mha.org.uk Methodist Homes for the Aged Mrs Anne Glover Care Home 36 Category(ies) of Old age, not falling within any other category registration, with number (36) of places Connell Court DS0000005346.V373057.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 4 SERVICE INFORMATION Conditions of registration: 1. Service users to include up to 36 OP Date of last inspection 30th January 2006 Brief Description of the Service: Connell Court is owned by Methodist Homes, a national charity. The home is registered to provide personal care and support for up to 36 older people and is situated within walking distance of Birkdale village where public transport, shops, a post office, banks and other local amenities are available. The home is a 3-storey purpose built building that is fitted with a passenger lift giving access to all floors. All the rooms are for single occupancy and have ensuite facilities. Assisted bath and toilet facilities are available and a call bell system is fitted throughout. There is a lounge, dining room and tea bay areas, which together with the conservatory provide ample communal space for the residents to watch television, join in activities or meet with visitors. A large, well-kept garden and a car park area is located at the rear of the building. Care Home Fees range from £418.00 to £465.00 per week. Connell Court DS0000005346.V373057.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 5 SUMMARY This is an overview of what the inspector found during the inspection. This unannounced inspection took place over one day and lasted approximately 9 hours. Thirty-five residents were living in the home at the time of the visit. A partial tour of the premises took place and observations were made. A selection of care staff and service records were also viewed. The manager and an assistant manager, senior carer, two care staff and nine residents were spoken to during the visit. Survey forms “Have your say about…..” were also sent to 12 (10 ) of the residents prior to the inspection, to obtain additional views / feedback about the home. All the key standards were reviewed and previous requirements and recommendations from the last inspection in January 2006 were discussed. What the service does well: Connell Court presented as a warm caring environment. Residents spoken with complimented the staff team and the quality of the care provided. Comments included; “The care staff are always available to help us and thy are sensitive and considerate” and “The general atmosphere is very kind and friendly among staff and residents.” The home had developed an assessment system and was in the process of introducing new support plans, which identified the health, personal and social care needs of residents and the support they required. Residents confirmed they had access to health care practitioners when required. For example a resident said; My GP is requested to visit when I need him. I have been to two hospital visits with my Keyworker.” Medication was well managed and systems had been established to enable residents to retain responsibility for their own medication, subject to individual needs and wishes. Daily life within the home was flexible and varied. The home’s activities coordinator organised a range of activities to meet the recreational and spiritual needs of the people living in the home. A resident spoken with reported; “The home places a great emphasis on social and recreational activities. There are lots of different activities arranged on our behalf.” Records showed that residents received a choice of nutritious and wholesome meals that were based upon the dietary needs of residents. Feedback received from the people living in the home confirmed they were satisfied with the Connell Court DS0000005346.V373057.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 6 meals provided and one resident said; “The meals are always nice and tasty and presented to a good standard.” Residents were able to receive visits from friends and family and follow their preferred routines and lifestyle. A relative reported; “Since moving into Connell Court the good food, increased social contact and kind staff have improved my mum’s wellbeing enormously.” The home had a complaints procedure, which was displayed throughout the home for the benefit of residents and their representatives to view. Records showed that any complaints received by the home had been listened to and acted upon. Feedback received from the majority of residents confirmed they were aware of how to complain and who to speak to if they had a problem. Policies and procedures had been developed to raise awareness of abuse and the action to take in response to suspicion or evidence of abuse. Staff spoken with confirmed they had received training in this subject and were able to demonstrate a good understanding of their duty of care to protect vulnerable people. Staff working in the home received a comprehensive induction and had access to ongoing training and development opportunities. A programme of quality assurance, self-review and consultation with residents continued to operate within the home to ensure the home was run in the best interest of the people living at Connell Court. What has improved since the last inspection? What they could do better: Connell Court DS0000005346.V373057.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 7 Some of the new support plans viewed did not clearly identify the desired support outcomes for residents. Plans should be reviewed to address this matter. At the time of the visit the Registered Manager had not completed a National Vocational Qualification in Care at level 4. Arrangements should be made for the manager to attain this qualification so that she has the necessary qualifications for her role. In order to improve health and safety practice, monthly visual inspections of the fire extinguishers should be undertaken on a monthly basis and records maintained as recommended by the fire department. Please contact the provider for advice of actions taken in response to this inspection. The report of this inspection is available from enquiries@csci.gsi.gov.uk or by contacting your local CSCI office. The summary of this inspection report can be made available in other formats on request. Connell Court DS0000005346.V373057.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 8 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 Connell Court DS0000005346.V373057.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 9 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. JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for the following standard(s): 1, 2 and 3 Quality in this outcome area is good. Pre-admission assessments were completed by the home to enable prospective residents to choose a home that could meet their needs and expectations. EVIDENCE: The manager reported that prior to any resident(s) being admitted into Connell Court, a senior member of staff would undertake an assessment using the Registered Provider’s corporate assessment documentation. The assessments were carried out to identify the needs of prospective residents and ensure the home was suitable for each individual’s needs. New residents spoken with confirmed that they were also encouraged to visit and spend time in the home prior to agreeing to move in. The files of four residents who had moved into the home since the last inspection were viewed during the visit. Each file contained a copy of a ‘Domiciliary Pre-Admission Assessment’ and a ‘Living Skills Assessment.’ Previous inspections have confirmed that assessments completed by social and / or health workers are also obtained by the home when available. Connell Court DS0000005346.V373057.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 10 Files viewed contained a copy of a signed contract and an admission procedure checklist, which included confirmation that residents and / or their representatives had been given a copy of the home’s Service User Guide. The manager reported that the format of the Service User Guide could be altered by the Registered Provider and made available in other formats appropriate to the individual resident and / or their family’s capacity and language. Feedback received from service users via care home surveys and discussion confirmed that they had received information on the home and a contract, which outlined terms and conditions of residency. Connell Court DS0000005346.V373057.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 11 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. JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for the following standard(s): 7, 8, 9 and 10 Quality in this outcome area is excellent. This judgement has been made using available evidence including a visit to this service. The home had established an effective care planning system to ensure the health and personal care needs of residents were identified and met. EVIDENCE: The manager reported that following admission to Connell Court, a support plan was produced for each resident. The files of four residents who had moved into the home since the last inspection were viewed during the visit. Each file contained a ‘Support Plan’, which outlined the ‘identified needs’, ‘support required’ and ‘support outcomes’ for individual residents. A range of risk assessments including; waterlow (skin integrity), nutrition, moving and handling and falls risk assessments had been completed and information on the wishes of each resident in relation to the administration of medication and other personal matters had been recorded. Personal profiles, daily records and other supporting documentation were also available for reference. Equality and diversity issues such as religion, sexuality, cultural and Connell Court DS0000005346.V373057.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 12 dietary needs were taken into consideration as part of the care planning process. Overall, support plans were well constructed, had been reviewed on a monthly basis and signed by residents and / or their representatives. Some outcomes recorded by staff were vague. This was discussed with the manager during the visit. Health care records for medical appointments i.e. optician, dentist, chiropodist, district nurse and doctors appointments formed an integral part of the support plans. A medical report from each resident’s general practitioner was also available on files viewed. Feedback received from residents via care home survey forms and discussion confirmed they had access to the medical support they needed and that they were valued and respected as individuals. Comments received from two residents included; “My GP is requested to visit when I need him. I have been to two hospital visits with my Keyworker” and “The manager or senior staff will always make arrangements to contact a doctor if anyone is unwell.” Staff spoken with demonstrated sound knowledge of the needs of residents, how to deliver person-centred care and the principles of good care practice. Residents spoken with confirmed they were valued and treated with dignity and their right to privacy observed. One resident stated; The general atmosphere is very kind and friendly among staff and residents” and another reported; “The care staff are always available to help us and they are sensitive and considerate.” The home had a copy of the Registered Provider’s corporate medication policy and had developed guidelines for self-administration. At the time of the visit three residents were self-administering medication and risk assessments, monthly monitoring forms and disclaimers were in place. Records showed that all staff responsible for the administration of medication had completed training and a record of staff responsible for administering medication, together with sample signatures was available for reference. The home continued to use a monitored dosage system. Medication Administration Records (MAR) were completed by the home to account for the administration of medication. MAR viewed had been correctly completed and provided a good audit trail as daily balances had also been recorded. Medication profiles had been completed to provide information on each resident’s medication and appropriate systems had been established to store and record controlled drugs and medication requiring refrigeration. Connell Court DS0000005346.V373057.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 13 Staff spoken to during the inspection demonstrated a sound understanding of the home’s procedures for the recording, handling, safekeeping, administration and disposal of medicines. Connell Court DS0000005346.V373057.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 14 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. JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for the following standard(s): 12, 13, 14 and 15 Quality in this outcome area is excellent. This judgement has been made using available evidence including a visit to this service. Daily life, social activities and meals were flexible and varied to enable residents to exercise choice and control over their lives. EVIDENCE: The home continued to employ an ‘Activities Coordinator’ who organised a range of activities in consultation with the people living in the home. The activities coordinator was able to demonstrate knowledge of the needs, expectations and preferences of each resident in relation to social and recreational activities. Monthly ‘Progress Report Records’ were maintained to record levels of participation and wellbeing in relation to activities, together with a record of activities and participants. Details of the weekly activities were recorded on a white board in the dining room and a copy of the weekly programme was distributed to each resident for reference. The weekly activities programme showed that residents participated in a range of activities including; Quizzes, entertainment, art groups, religious services, coffee and biscuit mornings, reminiscence, movement to music, bingo, manicure sessions, games, trips out and clothes sales etc. During the day of the inspection a trip had been organised for thirteen residents to attend a ‘Daffodil Day’ at a local church. Connell Court DS0000005346.V373057.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 15 Residents spoken with confirmed that there was a choice of activities, which they could choose or decline to participate in. Comments received from two residents included; “I like to listen to music in my bedroom. My sight is poor and I like my own company. Bebe [Activities Coordinator] calls into my room to ask me if I want to go to various activities” and “The home places a great emphasis on social and recreational activities. There are lots of different activities arranged on our behalf.” Ministers of religions from different denominations continued to visit the home to meet with residents and provide communion services, subject to individual wishes / religious beliefs. Residents were able to receive visitors / representatives from churches in the local community and support systems had been established to enable two residents to visit local churches. The home had a visiting policy, a copy of which was displayed in the reception area. Examination of the home’s visitor records showed that residents were able to receive visitors at different times of the day. Residents spoken with confirmed that they could receive visitors at any reasonable time and that they were able to exercise choice and control over their daily lives. Comments included; “Visitors are always welcome”; “My friend and family visit me on a regular basis” and “The home has a lovely atmosphere and I can do as I wish within reason.” The home had a four-week rolling menu, which provided a choice of meals for residents to enjoy. The manager reported that the menus were lasted revised at Christmas time following a Residents’ Forum meeting and had been quality checked by the Registered Provider’s Catering Manager, to ensure the meals provided were nutritious and wholesome. Mealtimes were considered to be a social occasion and food was served in the home’s dining room at set times. The manager reported that alternative arrangements could be made to accommodate individual needs upon request. The dining room was pleasantly furnished and spacious. As noted at the last inspection, china crockery was used and tables were furnished with tablecloths, napkins and condiments. Tea bay areas were also located on each floor to enable residents to prepare light refreshments as and when required. The manager reported that the home was able to cater for different religious and cultural dietary needs upon request. At the time of the visit the home was providing diabetic, low fat and soft / puree diets. Staff were observed to be available to provide assistance to residents as required. Comments from two residents included; “The food is varied and of good quality. We get choices at each sitting” and “The meals are always nice and tasty and presented to a good standard.” Connell Court DS0000005346.V373057.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 16 The relative of one resident stated; “Since moving into Connell Court the good food, increased social contact and kind staff have improved my mum’s wellbeing enormously.” Connell Court DS0000005346.V373057.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 17 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. JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for the following standard(s): 16 and 18 Quality in this outcome area is good. This judgement has been made using available evidence including a visit to this service. Systems had been developed to listen and respond to complaints and to protect service users from abuse. EVIDENCE: The Registered Provider had produced a Complaints policy to enable residents and / or their representatives to understand the home’s procedure for making a complaint. A copy of the procedure was included in the home’s Service User Guide and copies of the policy were displayed in the reception area of the home, dining room and tea bay areas. Nine concerns / complaints had been received by the home since the last inspection. Four of the complaints had been made by one resident and concerned a range of personal issues with other residents. The other complaints concerned environmental issues. For example, the previous condition of the garden paths and the quality of a television picture. Records showed that all of the complaints had been acknowledged and responded to by the manager and residents spoken with reported that they felt confident that the home would listen and act upon any issues of concern. Residents spoken with raised no complaints or concerns during the visit. Comments received from residents included; “I complained about my laundry as my woollen jumpers were shrunk in the wash. I was offered for them to be replaced”; “I could not find anything to complain about or disagree with but I Connell Court DS0000005346.V373057.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 18 am sure that if I did the staff would help resolve the problem” and “I am very pleased with staff and their reaction to different issues that arise.” Feedback received from the majority of residents via care home surveys also confirmed that residents were aware of how to complain and who they could speak to if they were unhappy. The home had policies and procedures in place to protect residents from abuse. These included an Abuse of Vulnerable Adults policy, a copy of the City of Liverpool and Borough of Sefton - Safeguarding Adults procedures and a Whistleblowing policy. The manager reported that no adult protection referrals had been made since the last visit. Training records showed that staff had access to Abuse Awareness training as part of their ongoing training and development. Staff spoken with during the visit demonstrated a good understanding of the different types of abuse, their duty of care to protect vulnerable people and reporting procedures. Connell Court DS0000005346.V373057.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 19 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. JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for the following standard(s): 19 and 26 Quality in this outcome area is good. This judgement has been made using available evidence including a visit to this service. The standard of the environment within this home is good providing residents with an attractive and homely place to live. EVIDENCE: The home employed a full time maintenance worker who was responsible for general and garden maintenance. Contractors were hired for major and specialised work as and when necessary. Previous inspection records confirmed that the manager had developed a maintenance plan to ensure the home received ongoing maintenance and refurbishment. Examination of health and safety records confirmed that the home’s maintenance worker and an assistant manager continued to undertake comprehensive Health and Safety Audits every two months to monitor the condition of the environment. The pre-inspection questionnaire detailed that a substantial amount of work had been completed since the last inspection. For example, the pathways Connell Court DS0000005346.V373057.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 20 around the back garden had been resurfaced with tarmac and the patio area outside the conservatory had been fitted with new paving flags. Furthermore, a new ‘Malibu’ bath had been fitted to the second floor bathroom and a number of areas had been redecorated and fitted with new carpets. New stainless steel sheets had been fitted to the kitchen and the top flat had been converted from a private lounge to a staff training room. The location and layout of the home was suitable for its stated purpose (please refer to the ‘Brief Description of the Service’ section for more information on the premises). Residents were observed to have access to personal mobility aids as required and a hearing loop system was fitted in the lounge. Overall, areas viewed appeared safe and well maintained. The manager reported that she had secured funding for the cracks in the wall on the third floor corridor to be repaired and for the passenger lift to be upgraded. Rotas showed that two domestics and two laundry assistants were employed in the home. Areas viewed were clean and hygienic and feedback received from residents via care home surveys and discussion confirmed the home was always kept fresh and clean. Connell Court DS0000005346.V373057.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 21 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. JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for the following standard(s): 27, 28, 29 and 30 Quality in this outcome area is good. This judgement has been made using available evidence including a visit to this service. Residents have access to competent staff who were correctly recruited and inducted into their roles. EVIDENCE: Examination of the home’s rotas showed that the staffing levels remained the same as identified at the last visit. Overall, three care staff and a senior member of staff were on duty from 7.00 am to 10.00 pm, with three waking night staff on duty throughout the night. It was noted that there were occasions when the night staffing levels had been reduced from three to two waking night staff due to exceptional circumstances. The manager reported that the home was not fully occupied at the times when staffing levels had reduced and that a risk assessment had been completed. An additional member of staff was available on-site to provide sleep-in duties, however this had not been recorded on the night rota. The manager agreed to address this issue. The home also employed a number of ancillary staff including an activities coordinator, two cooks, 3 kitchen assistants and a maintenance man. There were no staff vacancies at the time of the inspection. Feedback received from residents via care home surveys and discussion confirmed that staff were available when needed. One resident reported; “I have peace of mind because I am well looked after.” Connell Court DS0000005346.V373057.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 22 The Registered Provider had developed a corporate Recruitment and Selection procedure, which covered equal opportunities. The Registered Manager maintained responsibility for all aspects of recruitment and selection. The Provider’s Head Office in Derby was responsible for confirming that Protection of Vulnerable Adult (POVA) and Criminal Record Bureau (CRB) checks had been completed. The manager reported that four care staff and one cook had commenced employment since the last visit. The recruitment records for the five staff were viewed. Each file contained the necessary records required under the Care Home Regulations 2001. Discussion with staff and examination of training records confirmed staff completed a comprehensive in-house induction programme and other training courses that were relevant to their role. The manager reported that the home employed 30 care staff. This number included care assistants, senior care assistants, assistant managers and an activity coordinator. Training records showed that 18 care staff (59.9 ) had completed a National Vocational Qualification (NVQ) at level 2 or above. One staff member (3.3 ) had completed a NVQ and was awaiting a certificate. A further four staff (13.3 ) had enrolled on the NVQ training programme and were working towards the award. Once all the staff have completed the award and obtained certificates, 23 staff (76.6 ) of the home’s staff will be qualified to NVQ level 2 or above. Pre-inspection records detailed that since the last inspection the manager had arranged for a number of staff to complete a range of training including infection control and first aid training as required at the last inspection. Records also showed that future training was being planned to ensure all outstanding staff complete safe working practice training e.g. (Infection Control, Food Hygiene, Health and Safety, COSHH and First Aid) and / or other key training relevant to their role. Connell Court DS0000005346.V373057.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 23 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. JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for the following standard(s): 31, 33, 35 and 38 Quality in this outcome area is good. This judgement has been made using available evidence including a visit to this service. A range of management systems had been established, to ensure the home was safe and run in the best interests of residents. EVIDENCE: Connell Court was managed by Mrs Anne Glover who was registered with the Commission for Social Care Inspection. Mrs Glover had managed the home since June 2000. Previous inspection records confirmed that Mrs Glover had completed the level 4 National Vocational Qualification (NVQ) in Management. Mrs Glover reported that she had also completed the NVQ Registered Managers Award since the last visit and was waiting to receive her certificate. At the time of the inspection the manager had not completed a NVQ level 4 in Care. Connell Court DS0000005346.V373057.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 24 Records showed that the manager had completed a range of training that was relevant to the management of a care home for older people and that Mrs Glover had continued to undertake periodic training that was relevant to her role. Staff and residents spoken with complimented the manager and confirmed she communicated a clear sense of direction and leadership. Records showed that staff received formal supervision to support them in their role and there were clear lines of accountability both within the home and to senior management as previously noted. The Registered Provider commissioned an external organisation to undertake a quality assurance audit each year in addition to the home’s internal quality assurance systems. Records showed that the Methodist Homes for the Aged (MHA) group continued to monitor its performance and residents’ satisfaction levels by distributing annual surveys to residents. This was last completed for Connell Court during October 2006. The manager reported that the findings were collated and compared against similar services within MHA. The outcomes were discussed with residents and staff and formed the basis of an action plan for the home. Internal Quality Assurance Audits were also undertaken by the home twice each year to focus on topics from the Provider’s Quality Standards Manual. Furthermore, Resident Forum Meetings were coordinated throughout the year to enable the home to consult and seek the views of residents. A suggestion box was also available in the reception area to enable residents and their representatives to share their views in confidence. One resident reported; “The home is very considerate and our views on the service are sought from timeto-time.” The Registered Provider had developed a financial management procedure to provide guidance to staff. Pre-inspection records detailed that the manager did not act as an appointee for any of the residents. A volunteer provided a weekly service to facilitate the cashing of personal cheques for residents via Methodist Homes for the Aged. The manager reported that the management team and administrator looked after the personal spending money for eighteen residents. Records were maintained that detailed how the money was spent and receipts were obtained to account for expenditure. Secure facilities were available for the safekeeping of money. The home had a copy of the organisation’s Health and Safety Manual. Staff had access to safe working practice training as part of their ongoing training and Connell Court DS0000005346.V373057.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 25 development within the home and health and safety audits were undertaken every two months. The pre-inspection questionnaire detailed that equipment within the home was regularly serviced and copies of service equipment and public liability insurance certificates were available within the home. Fire records were checked during the inspection. Records showed that all staff had completed annual fire training and that staff received fire refresher training at regular intervals. The manager had developed a fire risk assessment and certificates were in place to confirm the fire alarm system, extinguishers and emergency lighting had been serviced. The home’s fire records showed that the system had generally been tested on a weekly basis, however there was no record of a weekly test from the 10th January 2007 to 21st February 2007. This was brought to the attention of the manager and maintenance worker during the visit. Records showed that the emergency lighting was visually inspected each month. The home was also recommended to undertake a visual inspection of the fire extinguishers on a monthly basis. Connell Court DS0000005346.V373057.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 26 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 3 3 X X X HEALTH AND PERSONAL CARE Standard No Score 7 4 8 3 9 4 10 3 11 X DAILY LIFE AND SOCIAL ACTIVITIES Standard No Score 12 4 13 3 14 3 15 3 COMPLAINTS AND PROTECTION Standard No Score 16 3 17 X 18 3 3 X X X X X X 3 STAFFING Standard No Score 27 3 28 3 29 3 30 3 MANAGEMENT AND ADMINISTRATION Standard No 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 Score 3 X 3 X 3 X X 3 Connell Court DS0000005346.V373057.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 27 Are there any outstanding requirements from the last inspection? No STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS This section sets out the actions, which must be taken so that the registered person/s meets the Care Standards Act 2000, Care Homes Regulations 2001 and the National Minimum Standards. The Registered Provider(s) must comply with the given timescales. No. Standard Regulation Requirement Timescale for action RECOMMENDATIONS These recommendations relate to National Minimum Standards and are seen as good practice for the Registered Provider/s to consider carrying out. No. 1. 2 3 Refer to Standard OP7 OP31 OP38 Good Practice Recommendations Support plans should be reviewed to ensure they clearly describe the desired support outcomes. The manager should complete a National Vocational Qualification in Care at level 4. Monthly visual inspections of the fire extinguishers should be undertaken and records maintained. Connell Court DS0000005346.V373057.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 28 Commission for Social Care Inspection Knowsley Local Office 2nd Floor, South Wing Burlington House Crosby Road North Liverpool L22 0LG National Enquiry Line: Telephone: 0845 015 0120 or 0191 233 3323 Textphone: 0845 015 2255 or 0191 233 3588 Email: enquiries@csci.gsi.gov.uk Web: www.csci.org.uk © This report is copyright Commission for Social Care Inspection (CSCI) and may only be used in its entirety. Extracts may not be used or reproduced without the express permission of CSCI Connell Court DS0000005346.V373057.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 29 - 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!