Inspection on 27/02/07 for Courthill House

This inspection was carried out on 27th February 2007.

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 no outstanding requirements from the previous inspection report, but made 4 statutory requirements (actions the home must comply with) as a result of this inspection.

Other inspections for this house

Courthill House 03/11/05

Courthill House 09/05/05

Courthill House 17/08/04

Courthill House 05/04/04

Similar services:

Thorndene

Insight - Eastchurch

Southfields

Magenta

Seabourne House

33 St John`s Church Road

Dovedale Court

Lyncol House

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

CARE HOME ADULTS 18-65 Courthill House Courthill House Court Hill Chipstead Surrey CR5 3NQ Lead Inspector Damian Griffiths Unannounced Inspection 27th February 2007 10:10 Courthill House DS0000013617.V327585.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 Courthill House DS0000013617.V327585.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. Courthill House DS0000013617.V327585.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 3 SERVICE INFORMATION Name of service Courthill House Address Courthill House Court Hill Chipstead Surrey CR5 3NQ 01737 557442 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) Surrey and Borders Partnership NHS Trust Mr Padmasiri Parakrama Warnakula Care Home 10 Category(ies) of Dementia (1), Learning disability (10), Physical registration, with number disability (2) of places Courthill House DS0000013617.V327585.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 4 SERVICE INFORMATION Conditions of registration: 1. 2. Out of the 10 beds registered for learning disability (LD) up to 2 (two) may have an additional physical disability (PD). Out of the 10 beds registered for learning disability (LD) one may have dementia (DE) 3rd November 2005 Date of last inspection Brief Description of the Service: Courthill House is a pleasant purpose built two storey residential home for up to ten people. It is situated in a residential area, close to a main road, Chipstead railway station and local shops. Resident’s bedrooms are single rooms and are provided on both floors. There are a variety of communal spaces, consisting of two sitting rooms, one dining room and an activity room. Access to the first floor is by lift and stairs. The home has a large enclosed garden, situated to the rear of the property. There is off-street parking for several cars at the front of the property. The home accommodates ten adult service users with a learning disability and the home can accommodate one service user with dementia related needs. The fees for service users was £66,148.73 per year and did not include additional costs such as; aromatherapy £6.00, hairdressing, holidays and outings. Courthill House DS0000013617.V327585.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 5 SUMMARY This is an overview of what the inspector found during the inspection. This unannounced Inspection formed part of the key inspection process and took 7 hours commencing at 10am and ending at 5pm. Mr Damian Griffiths Regulation Inspector completed the visit. The Area Manager and Mr Padmasiri Warnakula the Registered Manager were present for the inspection and represented the establishment. The inspector spent the day with service users and staff sampling care need assessments, care plans, talking to service users, staffs and observing staff interaction with service users due to the complex nature of service user communication needs. CSCI Survey forms were not issued to the service users. Staff files were inspected for evidence of good recruitment practice; training and the daily distribution of staff skills to meet the needs recorded in service user care plans. CSCI surveys were distributed to relatives and social and healthcare practitioners for their comments. Eight completed surveys were received from relatives and four from the health and social care practitioners who worked with the home. The inspector would like to thank the service users of Courthill House and their relatives and social and healthcare practitioners for their assistance with the completion of this report and staff for the provision of lunch, hospitality and patience throughout the inspection. What the service does well: Relatives completing a CSCI survey said; I am extremely happy with the care at the home – I have never seen them so happy – they have made progresses. Service users had received a full and comprehensive assessment of their care needs and goals. One relatives completing a CSCI survey said, “X is very well cared for at Courthill and, as a result, is much happier and far more responsive”. Service users benefited from well documented care plans that reflected their current daily needs and were based on what the service user liked and how the staff could provide it the manner preferred. Each aspect of service users care needs had received a risk assessment. Service users regularly visited the local communities, pub, restaurants and some worked out on a trampoline and regular holidays and day trips abroad had been experienced. Courthill House DS0000013617.V327585.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 6 The home environment was comfortable, clean and safe for service users to live. Relatives completing a CSCI survey said about the home; “excellent facilities, well maintained over the years, empathic staff”. What has improved since the last inspection? What they could do better: Please contact the provider for advice of actions taken in response to this inspection. The report of this inspection is available from enquiries@csci.gsi.gov.uk or by contacting your local CSCI office. The summary of this inspection report can be made available in other formats on request. Courthill House DS0000013617.V327585.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 Courthill House DS0000013617.V327585.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. JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for the following standard(s): Standards 1 and 2 were inspected. Quality in this outcome area is adequate. This judgement has been made using available evidence including a visit to this service. The Statement of Purpose provided clear information of the service provided however it had omitted essential details and was in need of updating. The service users had received a full and comprehensive assessment of their care needs and aspirations. EVIDENCE: The homes Statement of Purpose was in need of updating and the copy provided by the home to the Inspector was missing a page detailing the complaints process. The front page showed that August 2004 was the last time it was updated. The document was however well produced in pictures and the written part of the document informed the reader of the staff qualifications and the aims and objectives of the home. The four service users files sampled contained comprehensive care needs assessment completed by the appropriate social care provider. The home had ensured the care plans reflect the care needs of service users and how each service users goals would be met. Relatives completing the CSCI survey commented that they were welcomed in the home at anytime. Health and Social care practitioners completing the CSCI survey agreed that the home communicated clearly and worked in partnership with them. Courthill House DS0000013617.V327585.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 9 Individual Needs and Choices The intended outcomes for Standards 6 – 10 are: 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. Service users know their assessed and changing needs and personal goals are reflected in their individual Plan. Service users make decisions about their lives with assistance as needed. Service users are consulted on, and participate in, all aspects of life in the home. Service users are supported to take risks as part of an independent lifestyle. Service users know that information about them is handled appropriately, and that their confidences are kept. The Commission considers Standards 6, 7 and 9 the key standards to be inspected. JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for the following standard(s): Standards 6,7 and 9 were inspected. Quality in this outcome area is good. This judgement has been made using available evidence including a visit to this service. Service users benefited from well documented care plans that detailed changes and reflected their current daily needs. The care plans were based on what the service user liked and how the staff could provide the care. Each aspect of service user care needs contained a risk assessment. EVIDENCE: Service user care plans contained details of their care needs and individual goals. Each of the four care plans sampled contained details of care needs that had been compiled with input from service users, relatives, health and social care practitioners. Care plans had been reviewed regularly and details of individual need, likes and dislikes had been recorded and included detailed risk assessments that would help staff to ensure that service users were more likely to be guided towards a safe outcome. Courthill House DS0000013617.V327585.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 10 A communication chart was situated at the back of each care plan and an example of how service users needs were recorded such as, “ I point to the things I like” “ when I cup my hands I want a drink”. More could be achieved in this area to establish the service users views about aspects of their care plans. Relatives completing the CSCI survey commented that they were kept informed of important matters affecting their relative and that if the service user was unable to make a decision they were consulted about the service users care. The health and social care practitioners completing the CSCI survey agreed that the home incorporated specialist advice into the care plan. Courthill House DS0000013617.V327585.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 11 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. JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for the following standard(s): Standards 12, 13, 15, 16 and 17 were inspected Quality in this outcome area is poor. This judgement has been made using available evidence including a visit to this service. There was no evidence of in-house activities being available during the inspection and more needed to be done to ensure that activities identified in care plans were implemented. Service users were supported to maintain links with their relatives however they did not benefit from some staff practices. Service users were received a healthy and nutritious diet. EVIDENCE: Service users had a list of daily activities mostly at day centres and little activity was to be seen at the home during the inspection. Bingo, television, outings, sensory stimulation and music was listed but not observed during the inspection. The activity lists posted for the convenience of the staff was dated 4th April 2005. Evidence of service users visiting local venues such as the pubs, aromatherapy sessions, trampoline and various local church activities were recorded in care plans. Courthill House DS0000013617.V327585.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 12 The care plan of one service user, however, stated that he likes to go to the cinema at weekends. The ‘daily diary’ notes confirmed that the service user had not visited a cinema once over the past year and there was no record of why this had occurred. A review of staffing ratio’s to attending to service users needs was required. Relatives and representatives of the service users were encouraged to visit the home at anytime and parties were arranged on high days and holidays. Documentary evidence of holidays abroad and trips out could be found in the form of photographs celebrating the occasions appropriately mounted and located throughout the home and in service users bedrooms. Service users enjoy visits to the pub, activities arranged at the local church such as musical groups and crafts. Service users were observed to have full right of access to all areas of the home except areas that had been appropriately risk assessed such as the kitchen area were health and safety was actively promoted. Staff interaction with the service users was observed to be helpful when relating to practical tasks around the house and when going out however a service user was ‘kissed’ and ‘patted’ on the head when being introduced to the inspector and other staff referred to service users as boys and girls. The inspector accepts that the staff have the best interests of the service users at heart but service users have the right not to be patronised in this manner. The home was required to address this issue and should consider revisiting earlier ‘Disability Awareness’ training and review staff competencies. The menus sampled indicated that both the manager and the dietician had signed them to confirm that they considered them to be healthy and nutritional. Quiches and boiled potatoes with baked beans were on the menu on the day of the inspection. Staff were assigned a table each and were observed assisting service users however one staff member had to stand before the manager stepped in and helped him to get a chair. There was not enough dining room chairs due to the inspector being invited to join service users for a lunch of selected sandwiches. Service user food preference had been sought, for example on service user did not like mince. It was recommend for the home to consider the purchase of stacking of folding chairs to be used in the dining room during meal times. Please refer to the requirement section of this report, which details what action must be taken to address these areas. Courthill House DS0000013617.V327585.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 13 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. JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for the following standard(s): Standards 18, 19 and 20 were inspected Quality in this outcome area is good. This judgement has been made using available evidence including a visit to this service. The home provided service users with the healthcare and emotional support in a way that they preferred. Care was taken to ensure the safeguarding of prescribed medication was actively promoted. EVIDENCE: Personal care need preference had been recorded in the service users health care plan such as for example whether a male of female staff member should assist with personal care. Health care plans sampled showed evidence of assessment of service users preferences had been completed including on how care should be given such as treatment for epilepsy. Service users received full health and social care support. Completed CSCI surveys showed that healthcare and social care practitioners agreed that staff demonstrated a clear understanding of the care needs of the service users. A list of staff available to dispense medication was available for inspection and staff had received training in this area prior to being allowed to dispense medication. Courthill House DS0000013617.V327585.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 14 Medical administration records were inspected and tally with the medication held in the secure cabinet. Protocols were in place and drug returns had been signed in by the pharmacy and authorised. Courthill House DS0000013617.V327585.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. JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for the following standard(s): Standards 22 and 23 were inspected Quality in this outcome area is adequate. This judgement has been made using available evidence including a visit to this service. The complaint polices were in place but inconsistencies were apparent in the way the home actively promoted the complaints system to represent the service users. The home demonstrated that it correctly followed the procedures in place to protect service users from abuse and neglect. EVIDENCE: The home has a comprehensive complaints procedure in place however there were some shortcomings in the way that the home presented the procedure for public scrutiny as mentioned in the ‘Choice of Home’ section. The home arranged a service users meeting every four weeks however there was no evidence to show how service users satisfaction was being recorded and, as mentioned earlier in this report service users were not engaged in any activity and one had not been taken to the cinema. There was no service users feedback in respect of this in evidence. No complaints were recorded or reported during the inspection. Relatives, health and social care practitioners had not made a complaint however three out of the eight replies received from relatives did not know about the complaints procedures. They had activated the Surrey Multi-Disciplinary Procedures to investigate one case of alleged physical abuse occurring a service users was away from home. All the correct procedures had been applied and the appropriate authorities Courthill House DS0000013617.V327585.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 16 contacted. Staff had received the training about the issues relating to safeguarding vulnerable adults. Courthill House DS0000013617.V327585.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 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. JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for the following standard(s): Standards 24, 25, 26, 27, 28 and 30 were inspected Quality in this outcome area is adequate. This judgement has been made using available evidence including a visit to this service. The home environment was comfortable, clean and safe for service users to live. EVIDENCE: A tour of the premises was conducted within the company of one of the service users. The home was well maintained, clean and airy with picture of the service users and staff on the walls. Service users bedrooms were clean tidy and represented individual preference. The exception to the rule was the managers office that was cramped and in need of organising. There was evidence that not all of the space available for storage was being used to its full advantage. A similar room to the manager’s office, situated upstairs, was used for cold storage for tinned food and durables. This space was empty as were cupboard spaces in the dining room and on the upper landing. Courthill House DS0000013617.V327585.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 18 The service users had the use of a room upstairs that was available for activities. The room was not in use on the day of the inspection and the inspector was informed that it could be used as a quite place for service users and staff alike. The room however did show signs that it was beginning to be used for storage purposes. A thorough review of the usable spaces at the home was recommended. The laundry area was clean and afforded staff with a practical if compact area that was fully equipped. The inspector noted staff preference to use the side doors of the house rather than the main door. Staff must consider whether this is good practice and is it to be considered as the inappropriate use of the service users home. A thorough review of the usable spaces at the home was recommended. Courthill House DS0000013617.V327585.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 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 32, 34 and 35 the key standards to be inspected. JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for the following standard(s): Standards 32, 33, 34 and 35 were inspected Quality in this outcome area is adequate. This judgement has been made using available evidence including a visit to this service. Service user benefited from a well trained staff team however some poor practice that was observed brought into question the overall quality of staff training and low staffing numbers had caused service users to miss out on scheduled activities. EVIDENCE: Staffing levels discussed with the area manager on the day of the inspection, as service users were not engaged in any of the daily activities scheduled. It transpired that this was due to staff lateness; therefore three staff were on duty until the afternoon. It is essential that the staff/service user ratio for daytime care and activities be reviewed. Staff consulted had a good knowledge of the disabilities and specific conditions of the service users and an understanding of each service users communication needs and physical risks. Courthill House DS0000013617.V327585.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 20 Most staff on duty had acquired at least level 2 of the National Vocational Award and three members of staff had nursing qualifications. A sample of five staff files were inspected for evidence of good recruitment practice and of training to assess the appropriateness of skills mixed in the current shift rotas of the day. Recruitment practice was generally good and documentation was in place to verify the staff member had been properly vetted prior to being employed mainly due to the long service records of the staff. A requirement for staff files to hold a current photo had been implemented however the copies were generally from passports and were either poorly copied or bore little resemblance to the staff member. It was recommended, that staff provide an up-to-date photo for their files. Staff training logs were well documented and clearly showed the training achievements of most of the staff on duty. A good mix of skills was available throughout the day and evening and able to meet service users needs. ‘Disability Awareness’ training was featured in the training programme but staff were still in need of addressing ‘over familiarisation’ and institutionalised attitudes to the, “boys and girls”/service users, as recalled previously in the ‘Lifestyle’ section of this report. Please refer to the requirement and recommendation section of this report, which details what action must be taken to address these areas. Courthill House DS0000013617.V327585.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 21 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. JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for the following standard(s): Standards 37, 39 and 42 were inspected Quality in this outcome area is adequate. This judgement has been made using available evidence including a visit to this service. The manager was committed to providing a good standard of care to the service users but there were areas of improvement that needed to be implemented. The home had worked hard to elicit how service users made choices however it was not apparent that this had been implemented in a quality assurance format. The home promoted good health and safety practices. EVIDENCE: The manager agreed that he would benefit from office management skills that were needed to organise files and paperwork stored in the office. Archiving of all paper work in the office was started during the inspection. The management approach to the home was open and inclusive however aspects of neglect in areas of usable space management, staffing levels, Courthill House DS0000013617.V327585.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 22 record keeping, archiving and institutionalised attitudes of staff needing to be addressed. Minutes were available showing that service users had regular quarterly meetings were a range of issues had been discussed such as; holiday’s birthdays and trips out. As referred earlier in the ‘Concern, and Complaints’ section of this report it is recommended that more details of how the home seeks to record service users satisfaction of their activities as identified in their care plans should be considered by the home. There was no evidence relating to any recent quality assessment of the home that may of included this information. . A relative completing the CSCI survey stated, “I am extremely happy with my brothers care at the home”. Staff had received health and safety training and were observed following the ‘Control of Substances Hazardous to Health guidelines and when questioned understood the importance of health and safety requirements. Staff had attained skills in first aid, infection control, fire safety and food hygiene. A health and safety ‘self-assessment’ had been recently approved by the Environmental Health Department. CSCI surveys completed by eight relatives of the service users all had recorded their satisfaction of; the welcome they receive, being kept informed of important matters, sufficient staff on duty and overall satisfaction with the care. Courthill House DS0000013617.V327585.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 23 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 3 ENVIRONMENT Standard No Score 24 2 25 2 26 3 27 3 28 3 29 X 30 3 STAFFING Standard No Score 31 x 32 3 33 2 34 3 35 2 36 X CONDUCT AND MANAGEMENT OF THE HOME Standard No 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 Score 3 3 X 3 X LIFESTYLES Standard No Score 11 X 12 2 13 3 14 2 15 3 16 2 17 3 PERSONAL AND HEALTHCARE SUPPORT Standard No 18 19 20 21 Score 3 3 X 3 X 2 2 X 2 3 X Courthill House DS0000013617.V327585.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 24 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. 1. 2. Standard YA1 YA12 Regulation 4,5.6 and Schedule 1. 4.1,4.2. 16(2)(m) Requirement The Statement of purpose must include arrangements for dealing with complaints. Service users programme of activities must be reviewed in agreement with service users identified needs as recorded in their care plans to ensure suitable opportunities are made available both inside and outside of the home. The staffing arrangements must be reviewed to ensure that at all times sufficient numbers of trained and experienced staff are available to meet the service users assessed care needs. The manager and staff must seek training to ensure institutionalised attitudes are examined and that all service users are treated in a manner that respects their privacy and dignity. Timescale for action 06/04/07 06/04/07 3. YA33 18(1)(a) 06/04/07 4. YA35 18(1)(c ) 06/04/07 Courthill House DS0000013617.V327585.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 25 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. 4. Refer to Standard YA17 YA24 YA39 YA34 Good Practice Recommendations It was recommended that spare foldaway chairs be purchased. It was recommended that a thorough review of the all usable spaces at the home was recommended. It was recommended that more details of how the home seeks to record service users satisfaction/views of the activities identified in their care plans should be considered It was recommended that all staff provide an up-to-date photograph of themselves to be kept on file. Courthill House DS0000013617.V327585.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 26 Commission for Social Care Inspection Burgner House 4630 Kingsgate Cascade Way Oxford Business Park South Cowley Oxford, OX4 2SU 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 Courthill House DS0000013617.V327585.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!