Inspection on 12/09/05 for Copperbeech

This inspection was carried out on 12th September 2005.

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

Copperbeech 09/10/07

Copperbeech 09/11/06

Copperbeech 27/01/06

Copperbeech 16/03/05

Copperbeech 18/11/04

Copperbeech 23/03/04

Copperbeech 02/12/02

Similar services:

Hillside

Applegarth

122 Scorer Street

Jubilee Villa Care Home

Thornham Grove

Beech Lodge

8 Thorndale Road (Homefield College)

Hunter`s Lodge

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

CARE HOME ADULTS 18-65 Copperbeech (Amber Project) 172 Heanor Road Smalley Derby, DE7 6DY Lead Inspector Tony Barker Unannounced 12 September 2005, 9.15am th The Commission for Social Care Inspection aims to: • • • • Put the people who use social care first Improve services and stamp out bad practice Be an expert voice on social care Practise what we preach in our own organisation Reader Information Document Purpose Author Audience Further copies from Copyright Inspection Report CSCI General Public 0870 240 7535 (telephone order line) This report is copyright Commission for Social Care Inspection (CSCI) and may only be used in its entirety. Extracts may not be used or reproduced without the express permission of CSCI www.csci.org.uk Internet address This is a report of an inspection to assess whether services are meeting the needs of people who use them. The legal basis for conducting inspections is the Care Standards Act 2000 and the relevant National Minimum Standards for this establishment are those for Care Homes for Adults 18-65. They can be found at www.dh.gov.uk or obtained from The Stationary Office (TSO) PO Box 29, St Crispins, Duke Street, Norwich, NR3 1GN. Tel: 0870 600 5522. Online ordering: www.tso.co.uk/bookshop This report is a public document. Extracts may not be used or reproduced without the prior permission of the Commission for Social Care Inspection. Copperbeech C02 C52 S19964 Copperbeech V246735 120905 Stage 4.doc Version 1.40 Page 3 SERVICE INFORMATION Name of service Copperbeech Address (Amber Project) 172 Heanor Road Smalley Derby DE7 6DY 01773 530937 01773 530937 Telephone number Fax number Email address Name of registered provider(s)/company (if applicable) Name of registered manager (if applicable) Type of registration No. of places registered (if applicable) United Response Vacant Care Home 3 Category(ies) of 3 - Learning Disability registration, with number of places Copperbeech C02 C52 S19964 Copperbeech V246735 120905 Stage 4.doc Version 1.40 Page 4 SERVICE INFORMATION Conditions of registration: None Date of last inspection 17 March 2005 Brief Description of the Service: Copperbeach is a detached house situated on a main road within reasonable distance of the town of Heanor. Service users are provided with good-sized accommodation and single rooms. There is a good-sized rear garden. The Home offers personal and social care to people with a severe learning disability with associated conditions that may include autism, sensory disability or challenging behaviour. Activities are planned to meet individual needs. Copperbeech C02 C52 S19964 Copperbeech V246735 120905 Stage 4.doc Version 1.40 Page 5 SUMMARY This is an overview of what the inspector found during the inspection. The time spent on this inspection was 5 hours and was a routine unannounced inspection. The last inspection took place in March 2005 and was an unannounced inspection. This inspection was the inspector’s first visit to the Home. The Acting Manager and two staff members were spoken to, records were inspected and there was a tour of the premises. One service user’s records were examined as part of the case tracking method. Service users’ learning disabilities were such that they were unable to speak except on a single word level. However, they had varying degrees of non-verbal communication with the inspector. The focus of this inspection was on progress made on the requirements and recommendations made, and those standards not assessed, at the last inspection. What the service does well: What has improved since the last inspection? What they could do better: The Home’s Statement of Purpose must be reviewed. A number of documents need to be maintained in the Home for inspection. These include details of contracting arrangements with funding authorities and of staff recruitment and training. Care plans must be reviewed more regularly and further improvements must be made to the records associated with service users’ medicines. Additionally, the storage of the Home’s medicines must be improved. Repairs to the Home and refurbishments are needed as well as locks supplied to bedroom doors. The provision and maintenance of certain facilities are needed in order to assure better hygiene within the Home. Action must be taken to improve the Home’s management. Copperbeech C02 C52 S19964 Copperbeech V246735 120905 Stage 4.doc Version 1.40 Page 6 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. Copperbeech C02 C52 S19964 Copperbeech V246735 120905 Stage 4.doc Version 1.40 Page 7 DETAILS OF INSPECTOR FINDINGS CONTENTS Choice of Home (Standards 1–5) Individual Needs and Choices (Standards 6-10) Lifestyle (Standards 11-17) Personal and Healthcare Support (Standards 18-21) Concerns, Complaints and Protection (Standards 22-23) Environment (Standards 24-30) Staffing (Standards 31-36) Conduct and Management of the Home (Standards 37 – 43) Scoring of Standards Statutory Requirements Identified During the Inspection Copperbeech C02 C52 S19964 Copperbeech V246735 120905 Stage 4.doc Version 1.40 Page 8 Choice of Home The intended outcomes for Standards 1 – 5 are: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Prospective service users have the information they need to make an informed choice about where to live. Prospective users’ individual aspirations and needs are assessed. Prospective service users’ know that the home that they will choose will meet their needs and aspirations. Prospective service users have an opportunity to visit and to “test drive” the home. Each service user has an individual written contract or statement of terms and conditions with the home. The Commission consider Standard 2 the key standard to be inspected at least once during a 12 month period. JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for standard(s) 1,2 & 5 Full information about the Home was not available in order for prospective service users and their families to make an informed choice about where to live. Current service users were also not benefiting from this information. Individual’s needs had been fully assessed. Each service user had a written contract with the Home specifying the terms and conditions of their residence. EVIDENCE: The Home’s Statement of Purpose still did not reflect the changes to management arrangements, whether the Home’s physical environment is compliant with the National Minimum Standards and it did not contain all the items listed in Schedule 1 of the Regulations. The Service Users’ Guide still did not contain a summary of the issues relating to the physical environment standards, just mentioned, and information on how to contact the local Social Services Dept and the local Health Authority. A copy of the latter had not been given to individual service users to keep in their room. All of the current service users were admitted in 1990 as part of the closure programme of nearby Morley Manor and were subject to an extensive multidisciplinary assessment process. United Response had developed a comprehensive assessment and admission process for future referrals to its homes. Comprehensive individual service user plans completed by the Home were also on file. Copperbeech C02 C52 S19964 Copperbeech V246735 120905 Stage 4.doc Version 1.40 Page 9 The Home provided a complete statement of terms and conditions/contract for each service user, included in the service users’ guide, but these had not been completed by/for individuals. There were no details of the contracting arrangements between purchasing agencies and United Response, in respect of these three service users. Copperbeech C02 C52 S19964 Copperbeech V246735 120905 Stage 4.doc Version 1.40 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 standard(s) 6 & 7 Service users’ assessed and changing needs were not being reflected in their individual care plans. Service users were being enabled to make personal choices about their life. EVIDENCE: The file for one service user was viewed as part of case tracking. It contained extensive documentation including a care plan, risk assessments and a Life Skills Support Guide. The care plan had not been recently reviewed. The risk assessments were last reviewed in November 2004 and there was no evidence of the Life Skills Support Guide having been updated or reviewed. Improvements to the front information sheet, as recommended at the last two inspections, had not been carried out. Neither had the preferred name of the service user and name of the key worker been recorded within the care plan. The Behaviour Management Plan for the case-tracked service user was not on his case file and the Acting Manager eventually found it on the Home’s Daily File. This delay in finding the Behaviour Management Plan was concerning given the degree of agitation presented by the service user during this inspection. However, on reading the Behaviour Management Plan and discussing this with the Acting Manager, it was clear that the Plan needed reviewing as the service user’s behaviour was not being managed Copperbeech C02 C52 S19964 Copperbeech V246735 120905 Stage 4.doc Version 1.40 Page 11 appropriately during this inspection. The Acting Manager provided ideas on how this Behaviour Management Plan could be improved. She accepted that although there were care plan objectives these were not easy for staff to find and take action on. She also agreed that there was need to rationalise/simplify the case files in this Home, as identified at previous inspections. The case-tracked service user had made it clear to staff that he disliked attending the United Response day service centre and he now has a 5-day week day service provided by the Home’s staff and centred on the Home and local community. The Manager said that each of the three service users are enabled to make personal choices although these may not always be informed choices. The staff are working to address this, she said. Copperbeech C02 C52 S19964 Copperbeech V246735 120905 Stage 4.doc Version 1.40 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 standard(s) 12 & 16 Service users were normally able to take part in valued activities. Their rights were respected and responsibilities were recognised in their daily lives. EVIDENCE: Each service user had a weekly programme of activities. One service user was attending a Social Services Day Centre four days a week with a ‘personal day’, spent with the Home’s staff, one day a week. Discussion with one senior member of staff indicated that this service user is involved in valued activities at the Centre. This conclusion was based on the service user showing pride in something he had made at the Centre and brought back to the Home. A second service user was attending United Response day services but, on the day of this inspection, his start time had been put back to 12 noon. Staff did not know why this was so and this service user’s mild agitation added to the rather fraught atmosphere in the Home that morning. The third, case-tracked, service user had a farm visit planned that morning – as recorded on his Weekly Programme. However, his extremely challenging behaviour during the previous week meant that additional staff were needed to accompany him outside the Home. He was signing that he wanted to go out in the Home’s transport and could not understand why he was still in the Home. Additional funding from his placing authority was being requested, for extra staff. Copperbeech C02 C52 S19964 Copperbeech V246735 120905 Stage 4.doc Version 1.40 Page 13 The opinion of a senior member of staff was that, through the making of personal choices and preferences the service users usually found the activities in and around the Home to be meaningful and appropriate to their needs. The Acting Manager was observed knocking on bedroom doors before entering. Staff did not open service users’ mail without their agreement and each service user was called by their preferred name, though this was not recorded. Whilst general housekeeping tasks were recorded in each service user’s plan of care the expectation of this was not recorded in the Service Users’ Guide. Copperbeech C02 C52 S19964 Copperbeech V246735 120905 Stage 4.doc Version 1.40 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 standard(s) 20 Service users were not being protected by the Home’s policies and procedures for dealing with medicines. EVIDENCE: The member of staff with responsibility, on the morning of this inspection, for the case-tracked service user provided details of this individual’s medication administration record (MAR). This record, and those for the other service users, were being accurately maintained. However, although the doses of three items of medication, recorded on the MAR sheet, were consistent with the pharmacy bottle labels these doses were twice the doses recorded in a letter from a consultant psychiatrist dated February 2005. Also, the name of one of the items of medication being administered was not consistent with the items recorded in the consultant’s letter. There was no record of a medication review since February – though, clearly, there had been one. Additionally, the staff in the Home showed a lack of understanding of the function of these three items of medication, for this particular service user. Part way through the morning this service user was administered diazepam as a ‘when required’ (prn) dose. This was recorded on the rear of the MAR sheet but not the front. The service user was soon asleep in an easy chair. The Acting Manager was concerned to note that this prn dose had been administered in addition to the two other regular items of medication administered earlier that morning. The lack of written, signed and dated Copperbeech C02 C52 S19964 Copperbeech V246735 120905 Stage 4.doc Version 1.40 Page 15 instructions for the use of prn medication on the MAR sheet, or in other documentation, has been noted at the last two inspections. Medication was being securely stored in a locked cupboard. However, the medicines were sharing shelf space with money boxes and personal toiletries. Staff were being provided with training, in the safe use of medicines, by an accredited trainer. Copperbeech C02 C52 S19964 Copperbeech V246735 120905 Stage 4.doc Version 1.40 Page 16 Concerns, Complaints and Protection The intended outcomes for Standards 22 – 23 are: 22. 23. Service users feel their views are listened to and acted on. Service users are protected from abuse, neglect and self-harm. The Commission considers Standards 22, and 23 the key standards to be inspected at least once during a 12 month period. JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for standard(s) The standards in Section 5 were not assessed. EVIDENCE: Copperbeech C02 C52 S19964 Copperbeech V246735 120905 Stage 4.doc Version 1.40 Page 17 Environment The intended outcomes for Standards 24 – 30 are: 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. Service users live in a homely, comfortable and safe environment. Service users’ bedrooms suit their needs and lifestyles. Service users’ bedrooms promote their independence. Service users’ toilets and bathrooms provide sufficient privacy and meet their individual needs. Shared spaces complement and supplement service users’ individual rooms. Service users have the specialist equipment they require to maximise their independence. The home is clean and hygienic. The Commission considers Standards 24, and 30 the key standards to be inspected at least once during a 12 month period. JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for standard(s) 24,26 & 30 Service users were living in a generally safe environment. However, it was not homely everywhere and there was need for repairs and refurbishment. Service users’ privacy and independence was not being fully promoted in bedrooms. There were potential hygiene problems in some rooms. EVIDENCE: Material conditions were generally satisfactory within the Home except that the main lounge carpet was still very dirty in front of the settee and needed replacement. Also, there was still damaged plasterwork on the first floor landing. The lounge looked somewhat bare with just one small picture displayed on the white painted walls. There was a good-sized rear garden. One of the service user’s bedrooms was particularly well-personalised. All were provided with suitable furniture although none had a lockable space. None of the bedroom doors were lockable and there were no wash hand basins in any bedroom. Risk assessments and written management strategies, to address this deficiency, had been seen at previous inspections. However, staff felt that the policy of having no wash hand basins should be reviewed. Each bedroom lacked at least two double electric power sockets. In two bedrooms there was only one single power point, situated within a bedside cabinet, on which was mounted a multi-point adapter. The two bedroom carpets, Copperbeech C02 C52 S19964 Copperbeech V246735 120905 Stage 4.doc Version 1.40 Page 18 identified at the last inspection as being in need of replacement, had been replaced by laminate flooring. The third bedroom had a carpet that was discoloured around its edge. There was an offensive odour in one bedroom. There was no hand drying facility in the first floor bathroom and no toilet tissue in the ground floor WC. Neither of the WC seats stayed upright which could potentially cause problems for the three male service users and compromise hygiene. Copperbeech C02 C52 S19964 Copperbeech V246735 120905 Stage 4.doc Version 1.40 Page 19 Staffing The intended outcomes for Standards 31 – 36 are: 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. Service users benefit from clarity of staff roles and responsibilities. Service users are supported by competent and qualified staff. Service users are supported by an effective staff team. Service users are supported and protected by the home’s recruitment policy and practices. Service users’ individual and joint needs are met by appropriately trained staff. Service users benefit from well supported and supervised staff. The Commission considers Standards 35 the key standard to be inspected at least once during a 12 month period. JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for standard(s) 32 Service users were being supported by a mostly unqualified staff group. United Response was supportive of staff training. EVIDENCE: The Acting Manager was the only member of staff with a National Vocational Qualification (NVQ). Staff files were not available at the time of this inspection as the Acting Manager had not been left with a key to the relevant cabinet. This situation was also found at the inspection in November 2004. It was therefore not possible to confirm the quality of the Home’s staff recruitment procedures or of staff training. The Acting Manager said that all staff were provided with at least 5 days paid training per year. Copperbeech C02 C52 S19964 Copperbeech V246735 120905 Stage 4.doc Version 1.40 Page 20 Conduct and Management of the Home The intended outcomes for Standards 37 – 43 are: 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. Service users benefit from a well run home. Service users benefit from the ethos, leadership and management approach of the home. Service users are confident their views underpin all self-monitoring, review and development by the home. Service users’ rights and best interests are safeguarded by the home’s policies and procedures. Service users’ rights and best interests are safeguarded by the home’s record keeping policies and procedures. The health, safety and welfare of service users are promoted and protected. Service users benefit from competent and accountable management of the service. The Commission considers Standards 39, and 42 the key standards to be inspected at least once during a 12 month period. JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for standard(s) 37 & 38 Service users were not benefiting from a well-run Home. EVIDENCE: The Acting Manager was providing 9.75 hours per week management time at the Home and a further 9.75 hours per week were being provided by a second Acting Manager. A post of Senior Support Worker with Additional Responsibilities provided additional management time. The Acting Manager was experienced at running a care home – having been registered to manage another care home for more than the past four years. The Acting Manager had only worked three shifts at this Home prior to this inspection. She felt that the problems in the Home during the inspection reflected poor management oversight and accepted that she had, as yet, limited knowledge of the staff and service user group and their interactions. Later, the Senior Support Worker said he felt different staff interpret service users’ Behaviour Management Plans differently, leading to a “softening of boundaries” for service users. This is particularly pertinent to this service user Copperbeech C02 C52 S19964 Copperbeech V246735 120905 Stage 4.doc Version 1.40 Page 21 group who need clear, consistent boundaries. There was evidence throughout the inspection of poor management over a considerable period of time as well as an inadequate management handover recently. Examples of this include continuing poor maintenance in the Home, inadequate and out of date records, and poor hygiene practices. Neither an annual plan or financial plan for the Home was available for inspection. These were recommended at the last three inspections. Other aspects of this section were not inspected. Copperbeech C02 C52 S19964 Copperbeech V246735 120905 Stage 4.doc Version 1.40 Page 22 SCORING OF OUTCOMES This page summarises the assessment of the extent to which the National Minimum Standards for Care Homes for Adults 18-65 have been met and uses the following scale. The scale ranges from: 4 Standard Exceeded 2 Standard Almost Met (Commendable) (Minor Shortfalls) 3 Standard Met 1 Standard Not Met (No Shortfalls) (Major Shortfalls) “X” in the standard met box denotes standard not assessed on this occasion “N/A” in the standard met box denotes standard not applicable CHOICE OF HOME CONCERNS AND COMPLAINTS Standard No 1 2 3 4 5 Score 2 3 x x 2 Standard No 22 23 ENVIRONMENT Score x x INDIVIDUAL NEEDS AND CHOICES Standard No 6 7 8 9 10 LIFESTYLES Score 2 3 x x x Score Standard No 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 STAFFING Score 2 x 2 x x x 2 Standard No 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 x 3 x x x 3 x Standard No 31 32 33 34 35 36 Score x 3 x x x x CONDUCT AND MANAGEMENT OF THE HOME PERSONAL AND HEALTHCARE SUPPORT Standard No 18 19 20 21 Copperbeech Score x x 1 x Standard No 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 Score 3 2 x x x x x C02 C52 S19964 Copperbeech V246735 120905 Stage 4.doc Version 1.40 Page 23 Yes Are there any outstanding requirements from the last inspection? STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS This section sets out the actions which must be taken so that the registered person/s meets the Care Standards Act 2000, Care Homes Regulations 2001 and the National Minimum Standards. The Registered Provider(s) must comply with the given timescales. No. 1. Standard 1 Regulation 4(1)(c) Sch.1 Requirement The registered person must redevelop the Statement of Purpose to reflect the changes to management arrangements, whether the home’s physical environment is compliant with the NMS and to contain the items listed in Schedule 1 of the Regulations. (Previous timescale was 31/1/05) Details of contracting arrangements (between the purchasing authority and provider) must be kept at the Home and be available for inspection. Written evidence that this has been sought must be kept on individual files.(Previous timescale was 31/10/03) Care plans, including risk assessments and Behaviour Management Plans, must be reviewed at least every six months or when pertinent changes occur . All records supporting medication changes and reviews must be maintained on file. All items of medication administered to a service user must be recorded on the front of Timescale for action 1 January 2006 2. 5 5(3) 1 December 2005 3. 6 15(2)(b) 1 January 2006 4. 5. 20 20 13(2) 13(2) 1 December 2005 1 November 2005 Page 24 Copperbeech C02 C52 S19964 Copperbeech V246735 120905 Stage 4.doc Version 1.40 the MAR sheet. 6. 20 13(2) The instructions for the administration of occasional medicines (PRN) must be written, signed and dated on the MAR sheets or in other documentation. Medication must be stored in a dedicated cupboard, separate to other items. The registered person must replace the carpet in the main lounge.(Previous timescale was 30/6/05) The registered person must arrange for repairs to be made to the damaged plasterwork on the first floor landing.(Previous timescale was 30/6/05) The lounge must be made more comfortable and homely. Service Users must be allowed to hold the keys to their bedroom doors, which must be lockable on both the inside and outside of the door. However, if this is considered to be inappropriate, the reason must be stated clearly within each Service User plan of care (in a revised front sheet).(Previous timescale was 30/6/04) The bedroom carpet, identified in this report, must be cleaned or replaced. The bathroom and WCs must have suitable hand drying facilities and toilet tisue available at all times. The Home must be kept free from offensive odours at all times. All records specified in Schedule 4 of the Regulations must be available for inspection at all times. 28 October 2005 7. 8. 20 24 13(2) 16(2)(c) 1 November 2005 1 February 2006 1 December 2005 1 January 2006 1 January 2006 9. 24 23(2)(b) 10. 11. 24 26 23(2)(a) 12(4)(a) 12. 13. 14. 26 30 16(2)(c) 13(3) 1 February 2006 1 December 2005 1 December 2005 1 November 2005 Page 25 15. 16. 30 34,35 16(2)(k) 17(3)(b) Copperbeech C02 C52 S19964 Copperbeech V246735 120905 Stage 4.doc Version 1.40 17. 38 12(1)(a) The registered person must support the Acting Manager to bring about an improvement in the management of the Home. 1 November 2005 RECOMMENDATIONS These recommendations relate to National Minimum Standards and are seen as good practice for the Registered Provider/s to consider carrying out. No. 1. Refer to Standard 1 Good Practice Recommendations The Responsible Person should inform Service Users, in the Service Users Guide, of how to contact the local Social Services Dept and local Health Authority.(This was a recommendation from 18/11/04) The copies of the individual statement of terms and conditions of residence, included in the service users’ guide, should be signed on behalf of individuals and given to them with the complete document.(This was a recommendation from 18/11/04) The registered person should redevelop the front information sheet included in care planning documentation. This should include statements about elements of the NMS that have not been carried out due to unsuitability or service user incapacity.(This was a recommendation from 18/11/04) The preferred name of the Service User and name of the keyworker should be recorded within the plan of care.(This was a recommendation from 23/3/04) The registered person should complete a review of care planning documentation and edit any unneeded or repetitive documentation.(This was a recommendation from 18/11/04) The housekeeping tasks expected of Service Users must be recorded in the Service Users’ Guide to the home.(This was a recommendation from 23/3/04) Service users should each be provided with a lockable facility in his bedroom.(This was a recommendation from 23/3/04) The provision of wash hand basins in each bedroom should be re-considered. The problem of the WC seats not staying upright should be addressed 50 of staff should achieve a National Vocational Qualification (NVQ) to level 2 or above by 31 December C02 C52 S19964 Copperbeech V246735 120905 Stage 4.doc Version 1.40 Page 26 2. 5 3. 6 4. 5. 6 6 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 16 26 26 30 32 Copperbeech 11. 12. 13. 39 43 26 2005.(This was a recommendation from 23/3/04) The Responsible Person should develop an annual plan for the Home.(This was a recommendation from 23/3/04) A copy of the financial plan for the Home should be available for inspection.(This was a recommendation from 23/3/04) The Responsible Person should increase the number of electrical sockets in bedrooms to at least 2 double sockets. Copperbeech C02 C52 S19964 Copperbeech V246735 120905 Stage 4.doc Version 1.40 Page 27 Commission for Social Care Inspection South Point, Cardinal Square Nottingham Road Derby DE1 3QT 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 Copperbeech C02 C52 S19964 Copperbeech V246735 120905 Stage 4.doc Version 1.40 Page 28 - 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!