Inspection on 16/06/06 for Dearnevale

This inspection was carried out on 16th June 2006.

CSCI has not published a star rating for this report, though using similar criteria we estimate that the report is Good. 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 2 statutory requirements (actions the home must comply with) as a result of this inspection.

Other inspections for this house

Similar services:

Snydale Care Home

Whiteley House

Staveley Birk Leas Nursing Home

Fairmount Nursing Home

Currergate Nursing Home

Tyndale Avenue

Brookfield

Castlethorpe Care Home

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

CARE HOME ADULTS 18-65 Dearnevale Elizabeth Street Grimethorpe Barnsley S72 7HZ Lead Inspector Mrs Sue Stephens Key Unannounced Inspection 16th June 2006 10:45 Dearnevale DS0000065489.V299455.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 Dearnevale DS0000065489.V299455.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. Dearnevale DS0000065489.V299455.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 3 SERVICE INFORMATION Name of service Dearnevale Address Elizabeth Street Grimethorpe Barnsley S72 7HZ 01226 719000 01226 780882 mphillips@exemplarhc.com None Dearne Valley Health Care Limited 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) Melanie Ann Phillips Care Home 40 Category(ies) of Mental disorder, excluding learning disability or registration, with number dementia (20), Physical disability (40) of places Dearnevale DS0000065489.V299455.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 4 SERVICE INFORMATION Conditions of registration: None Date of last inspection First Inspection Since Registration Brief Description of the Service: Dearnevale is a purpose built care home. It provides personal care and nursing care for people with physical disabilities and for people with complex needs and physical disabilities. There are 4 units, 2 at ground level and 2 on the first floor. Each unit accommodates 10 people. There are stairs and lift access to the upper floor. There is a therapy and activity room available and residents can meet with visitors in a quiet room if they wish. Each unit has a spacious dining area and spacious lounge; there are facilities for residents to make their own drinks and snacks. The corridors and doors are designed to accommodate wheelchairs and the garden is accessible to people with mobility difficulties. The bedrooms are purpose built; they are spacious and include en-suite facilities. There are security keypads to doors and the staircases for the residents’ safety. The home stands in its own grounds, with gardens and parking space. It is well located to access local shops and pubs and there is public transport close by. The home is situated in the Grimethorpe area of Barnsley; there is public transport to the town, college, and leisure facilities. The manager provided the Commission for Social Care Inspection with information about the homes fees and charges on 26/05/2006. Cost per care hour is £16.50 per hour. There are additional charges for toiletries, hairdressing, chiropody and telephone calls. Prospective residents and their families can get information about Dearnevale by contacting the manager. The home will also provide a copy of the statement of purpose and the latest inspection report. Dearnevale DS0000065489.V299455.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 5 SUMMARY This is an overview of what the inspector found during the inspection. This visit was unannounced; it took place between 10:45am and 5pm. The inspector sought the views of all the service users, one relative, and 3 staff. The manager was unavailable; the clinical nurse manager, Ann Stenton, was in charge and assisted with the visit. Checks were made on samples of documents relating to the residents care and safety. During the visit the inspector also looked at the environment, and made observations on the staff’s manner and attitude towards the residents’. The inspector checked a sample of records. These included 3 assessments and care plans, 3 medication records, 3 staff recruitment files, training records, and health and safety records. The inspector looked at other information before visiting the home, this included reports made by the provider about the home, and the pre inspection questionnaire which was requested from the Commission for Social Care Inspection (CSCI). Three staff and 2 care professionals involved in the home, returned surveys to the Commission about their views on the home. There had been no concerns, complaints or allegations about the home made to the Commission. There were 3 residents living at Dearnevale at the time of the visit. This was the home’s first inspection and the inspector checked all key standards as part of this inspection. The inspector would like to thank the residents, relative, staff and manager, and visiting professionals for their assistance in this inspection. What the service does well: Trained and competent staff support the residents. The residents said they receive good care from caring and friendly staff. The residents get a needs assessment before they come to live at the home. This makes sure the home can meet each resident’s needs and aspirations. Each resident has a care plan; the care plans give staff clear instructions about how to support the residents, and about their special individual needs. The residents can be involved in their assessment and care plans if they wish. Dearnevale DS0000065489.V299455.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 6 Staff treat the residents with dignity and respect. They support the residents to make decisions, they explain why if a resident cannot do something the resident wants; and the staff are aware of any risks to the resident and how to support the resident to keep safe. The residents have good activity and leisure opportunities. These include oneto-one activities, art, letter writing and reading, interactive games and outings. The home invites the residents to review the activity programme; they do this to make sure it includes the things the residents want to do. The residents get good food, there are plenty of food and snacks available and staff understand the residents special dietary needs. The residents said the staff look after them well, and the staff understand their health and personal care needs. The residents and relative made positive comments about the care, these included: “Staff are all very nice”, “they try very hard”, “it is nice and quiet and relaxed here”, “they (staff) are very good”, “they (staff) put themselves out to help you”. The systems to look after and administer the residents’ medication was very well organised and safe. The resident said they knew they could complain if they wished and that the staff and manager would listen to them. Staff have had adult protection training so that they can identify bad practice and take appropriate action to keep the residents safe. The residents said they were happy with the home’s environment. The home was well furnished, clean and comfortable. The staff had good training, this made sure they understood how to support the residents and keep them safe. The manager was good at managing the home, she made checks to make sure the resident’s were safe and happy, and staff were doing their job right. The manager made sure the home kept good records of the residents care and how the home was run. The staff were trained to follow safe working practices, such as food hygiene, moving and handling and fire safety. A maintenance person checked the home regularly to make sure everything was safe and well maintained. Dearnevale DS0000065489.V299455.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 7 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. Dearnevale DS0000065489.V299455.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 8 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 Dearnevale DS0000065489.V299455.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 9 Choice of Home The intended outcomes for Standards 1 – 5 are: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Prospective service users have the information they need to make an informed choice about where to live. Prospective users’ individual aspirations and needs are assessed. Prospective service users know that the home that they will choose will meet their needs and aspirations. Prospective service users have an opportunity to visit and to “test drive” the home. Each service user has an individual written contract or statement of terms and conditions with the home. The Commission consider Standard 2 the key standard to be inspected at least once during a 12 month period. JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for the following standard(s): 2 The quality outcome of this area is good. This judgement has been made from evidence gathered both during and before the visit to the service. The home’s assessment tool is good; it makes sure that before someone is admitted to the home, the home understands their needs and aspirations. EVIDENCE: The home had carried out a thorough assessment on each resident. The assessments were good in detail and covered peoples nursing personal and social needs. Residents, who were able, had participated in their own assessment and staff had sought their views. Qualified and competent staff carried out the assessments; they developed the care plans based on the information from the assessments. This meant that residents received good care from staff because they understood the residents’ individual needs. Dearnevale DS0000065489.V299455.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 10 Individual Needs and Choices The intended outcomes for Standards 6 – 10 are: 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. Service users know their assessed and changing needs and personal goals are reflected in their individual Plan. Service users make decisions about their lives with assistance as needed. Service users are consulted on, and participate in, all aspects of life in the home. Service users are supported to take risks as part of an independent lifestyle. Service users know that information about them is handled appropriately, and that their confidences are kept. The Commission considers Standards 6, 7 and 9 the key standards to be inspected at least once during a 12 month period. JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for the following standard(s): 6,7, and 9 The quality outcome of this area is good. This judgement has been made from evidence gathered both during and before the visit to the service. The residents have good care plans that tell staff about the residents’ individual needs. The plans can improve further for the residents by making sure the care plans always include the residents’ likes and dislikes. The residents get support to make decisions and take reasonable risks in their lives. EVIDENCE: The staff understood the importance of care plans. Staff who had returned surveys made the following comments “I read up on the care plans on a daily basis and when coming onto a shift”, “I first of all look at clients care plans and I ask the clients”. Dearnevale DS0000065489.V299455.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 11 The care plans were very well organised, information was easy to find and understand. The information was relevant to the needs of the residents and included nursing and personal care needs. The clinical nurse manager said staff invite the residents to be involved in their plans. In one plan a service user had added their own profile; this gave staff an excellent understanding of the individuals Lifestyle and social preferences. In the plans there were clear guidelines for staff about how to keep people safe. For example how to safely move a person. The care plans did not have enough information about what people liked and disliked and what their preferences were. This is important to the residents, especially those who may not always be able to express their wishes. One resident and one relative told the inspector that the home respected the resident decisions and choices. One resident said, “Sometimes I find staff have not agreed (with my decisions) but they do explain why”. Dearnevale DS0000065489.V299455.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 12 Lifestyle The intended outcomes for Standards 11 - 17 are: 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. Service users have opportunities for personal development. Service users are able to take part in age, peer and culturally appropriate activities. Service users are part of the local community. Service users engage in appropriate leisure activities. Service users have appropriate personal, family and sexual relationships. Service users’ rights are respected and responsibilities recognised in their daily lives. Service users are offered a healthy diet and enjoy their meals and mealtimes. The Commission considers Standards 12, 13, 15, 16 and 17 the key standards to be inspected at least once during a 12 month period. JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for the following standard(s): 12,13,15,16, and 17 The quality outcome of this area is good. This judgement has been made from evidence gathered both during and before the visit to the service. The residents have good opportunities to take part in personal development, leisure and interesting daily activities. They get support to maintain relationships and friendships. The residents are satisfied with the meals, drinks and snacks provided by the home. EVIDENCE: The residents said they were happy about how the home supported them with their daily routines. One resident said “I’m quite happy sat listening to music” another resident said he had internet access in his room and sometimes joined in games in the lounge. Dearnevale DS0000065489.V299455.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 13 The home employed a full time Life skills Coordinator; the coordinator worked with the residents to help them develop their independence. The coordinator explained about some of the activities she arranged, for example baking, which involved preparing and choosing the ingredients; the activity would focus around the resident and their abilities. There was a weekly activities program, the coordinator and residents would review this each Monday so that the program included the residents’ choices. The activities at the home include board games, DVD interactive games, quizzes and bingo, art and design, letter writing and reading. The home offered outings to the local community, walks and visiting the wetlands, and visits to local shops. The coordinator was skilled in organising events and the home planned to have a summer fair. The coordinator said she developed the activities and life skills programmes around what the residents prefer, and gave examples of musical choice, religion, films, and newspapers. The coordinator gave examples of good one-to-one support this included supporting someone to go and see a live concert. One resident and 2 staff felt that sometimes there was not enough opportunity to go out as often the resident wished. The Clinical nurse manager explained that the home did not yet have it’s own transport and relied on borrowing one from a sister home. The relative said the staff at the home had been very supportive not only to the resident but to the relative; the relative said the staff were welcoming and “they put themselves out for you”. The residents said they were satisfied with their meals. There was good evidence in the care plans that People’s dietary needs had been assessed and plans were in place to make sure people got the nutrition they needed”. The residents could help themselves to snacks and drinks. This included hot and cold drinks, biscuits and fruit. The manager gave information before the visit and confirmed that the home does cater for people from minority ethnic groups. Staff who replied in the survey had a good understanding about how to support people’s physical needs during mealtimes. They explained the importance of making sure the residents had the right kind of utensils and about offering the residents’ choice. Dearnevale DS0000065489.V299455.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 14 The residents made the following comments about the meals at the home: Staff were “good at bringing drinks” “The food is good and there is variety” “Sometimes there is limited choice but that’s ok” “The meals are alright” “Staff tell me what is on the menu”. Dearnevale DS0000065489.V299455.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 15 Personal and Healthcare Support The intended outcomes for Standards 18 - 21 are: 18. 19. 20. 21. Service users receive personal support in the way they prefer and require. Service users’ physical and emotional health needs are met. Service users retain, administer and control their own medication where appropriate, and are protected by the home’s policies and procedures for dealing with medicines. The ageing, illness and death of a service user are handled with respect and as the individual would wish. The Commission considers Standards 18, 19, and 20 the key standards to be inspected at least once during a 12 month period. JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for the following standard(s): 18,19, and 20 The quality outcome of this area is good. This judgement has been made from evidence gathered both during and before the visit to the service. The residents receive good health and personal care from staff who understand their needs. The home’s medication systems were safe and carefully managed. EVIDENCE: The residents said the staff looked after them well. One resident said that they were “definitely” well looked after, and another resident said, “I have no complaints about the staff, they are very helpful”; the resident also said “the staff are very nice and understanding, they are getting to know me and try very hard”. The relative said about their family member’s care “staff are very good”, “they are very nice and helpful”. The inspector noted that staff spoke to the residents in a polite and friendly manner; the staff were attentive and positive in their approach. Dearnevale DS0000065489.V299455.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 16 The inspector spoke to 3 staff, they said their induction covered good guidance about personal and health care; they understood each individual residents’ needs. One resident said the staff understood their health needs “very well”. The care plans recorded the residents’ health needs thoroughly; they gave staff clear guidance about how to care for people’s individual and special needs. Because the home provided nursing care, there was a qualified nurse on at all times. One nurse said that the nurses came from different backgrounds and together they had a wide knowledge of health care and specialist needs. For example the nurses were qualified in general, mental health and learning disability nursing. The residents confirmed that the staff were sensitive and understood people’s diversity needs, this was also covered in staff induction. The home managed the medication systems well. The records had a clear photo of the resident, along with their name and any allergies. This made sure that staff identified the correct person and was aware of their allergies. The home followed an excellent practice; after a resident’s medication review a form was completed and stored with the daily administration records. This gave the nurses’ immediate and up to date information about any medication changes; the clinical nurse manager was adapting the procedure to also include why the review had taken place. The clinical nurse manager confirmed that only nurse qualified staff administered medication. The storage and records were clean and orderly, this provided a safe system for residents who needed support with their medication. One professional survey said the staff and manager managed the residents’ medication appropriately; and they said that staff demonstrate a clear understanding of the residents needs. Dearnevale DS0000065489.V299455.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 17 Concerns, Complaints and Protection The intended outcomes for Standards 22 – 23 are: 22. 23. Service users feel their views are listened to and acted on. Service users are protected from abuse, neglect and self-harm. The Commission considers Standards 22, and 23 the key standards to be inspected at least once during a 12 month period. JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for the following standard(s): 22 and 23 The quality outcome of this area is good. This judgement has been made from evidence gathered both during and before the visit to the service. The home would listen to the residents and take action if they raised a concern or complaint. The adult protection procedures need to be available for staff so that if they are concerned about a resident’s welfare they can take appropriate action. EVIDENCE: The residents and the relative said they felt they were able to complain or tell someone if they were worried about something; and each person consulted said that the staff and managers would listen to them. One resident said confidently “If I wanted to complain I would say something”. Staff had a good understanding about how to handle a complaint or concern and the complaints procedure was on display in the entrance to the home. The complaints procedure was in small writing, this made it difficult to notice the procedure and for some people it could be difficult to read. Staff received adult protection training as part of their induction and the staff consulted about adult protection procedures were confident about what to do. The Local Authority’s and the home’s adult protection policies were not available for staff to refer to; this meant that if they were concerned about the welfare of a resident they did not have clear written guidelines to refer to and follow. Dearnevale DS0000065489.V299455.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 18 Environment The intended outcomes for Standards 24 – 30 are: 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. Service users live in a homely, comfortable and safe environment. Service users’ bedrooms suit their needs and lifestyles. Service users’ bedrooms promote their independence. Service users’ toilets and bathrooms provide sufficient privacy and meet their individual needs. Shared spaces complement and supplement service users’ individual rooms. Service users have the specialist equipment they require to maximise their independence. The home is clean and hygienic. The Commission considers Standards 24, and 30 the key standards to be inspected at least once during a 12 month period. JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for the following standard(s): 24 and 30 The quality outcome of this area is good. This judgement has been made from evidence gathered both during and before the visit to the service. The residents live in a homely, comfortable, clean and safe environment. EVIDENCE: The residents and relative said they were very satisfied with the homes environment. They also said they were happy with the bedrooms and the residents had everything they needed in their rooms. One resident said there was a problem with the design of the bathroom, which affected their independence; the resident said staff had worked closely with the resident to find a safe solution. The dining area was bright and nicely decorated; it was spacious and had coordinated furnishings. There were facilities to make drinks and snacks and the residents could access the area at any time. Dearnevale DS0000065489.V299455.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 19 The lounge was also bright and spacious; it had comfortable chairs and settee and was decorated in a homely manner. The garden was accessible from the ground floor, it was well maintained and had a patio area with good quality garden furniture. The home was clean and tidy. A maintenance person regularly checked the building and arranged for renewals and repairs. Two staff members responsible for the cleaning said the managers supported them well. They had good supplies of cleaning materials and the cleaning equipment was new and of good quality. They said they were given sufficient time to clean the home. Dearnevale DS0000065489.V299455.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 20 Staffing The intended outcomes for Standards 31 – 36 are: 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. Service users benefit from clarity of staff roles and responsibilities. Service users are supported by competent and qualified staff. Service users are supported by an effective staff team. Service users are supported and protected by the home’s recruitment policy and practices. Service users’ individual and joint needs are met by appropriately trained staff. Service users benefit from well supported and supervised staff. The Commission considers Standards 32, 34 and 35 the key standards to be inspected at least once during a 12 month period. JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for the following standard(s): 32,34, and 35 The quality outcome of this area is good. This judgement has been made from evidence gathered both during and before the visit to the service. Trained and competent staff support the residents. The residents are satisfied that they receive good care from professional, caring and friendly staff. EVIDENCE: 50 of the care staff had a National Vocational Qualification in care at level 2 or above. The residents and the relative confirmed the staff were efficient and had good communication skills. The feedback from the professional surveys also confirmed this. Both the residents and the relative said the staff were “very nice”. Each staff had a thorough recruitment check, however, some staff had employment gaps, the home had not recorded the reasons for the gaps. Employment gaps need to be explained to make sure that the home employs the right people to support the residents. Dearnevale DS0000065489.V299455.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 21 The staff said they had been given good training, they said their induction was very good, and it covered the important things they need to know, for example understanding dignity and respect and the principles of care. The manager provided a list of training already given and this included: pressure area care, diabetes, PEG feed, brain injury, continence, medication training, epilepsy and palliative care. Dearnevale DS0000065489.V299455.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 22 Conduct and Management of the Home The intended outcomes for Standards 37 – 43 are: 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. Service users benefit from a well run home. Service users benefit from the ethos, leadership and management approach of the home. Service users are confident their views underpin all self-monitoring, review and development by the home. Service users’ rights and best interests are safeguarded by the home’s policies and procedures. Service users’ rights and best interests are safeguarded by the home’s record keeping policies and procedures. The health, safety and welfare of service users are promoted and protected. Service users benefit from competent and accountable management of the service. The Commission considers Standards 37, 39, and 42 the key standards to be inspected at least once during a 12 month period. JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for the following standard(s): 37,39 and 42 The quality outcome of this area is good. This judgement has been made from evidence gathered both during and before the visit to the service. The home’s good management, quality audits and safe working practices safeguard the residents’ comfort, wellbeing and safety. EVIDENCE: The manager demonstrated her fitness through the Commission for Social Care registration process in 2005 and the manager has significant experience in supporting people with nursing and complex needs. The home had good quality audit systems in place, these included maintenance records; care plan audits, staff and finance records; staff supervision, medication audits, resident care checks, and regular visits and reports by the provider. Dearnevale DS0000065489.V299455.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 23 The organisation issued most of the quality audit systems; the clinical nurse manager said the manager was very keen to make sure the homes records and audits were accurate and up to date. The manager expected the staff to keep neat and tidy records. The home followed good safe working practice guidelines. A maintenance person had responsibility for health and safety checks. A health and safety file recorded the homes checks, these included fire equipment checks, fire drills and training. The homes training matrix showed that all staff receive safe working practice training as part of their induction. The matrix also identified future update training for staff. Dearnevale DS0000065489.V299455.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 24 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 X 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 3 23 2 ENVIRONMENT Standard No Score 24 3 25 X 26 X 27 X 28 X 29 X 30 3 STAFFING Standard No Score 31 X 32 3 33 X 34 2 35 3 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 3 13 3 14 X 15 3 16 3 17 3 PERSONAL AND HEALTHCARE SUPPORT Standard No 18 19 20 21 Score 3 3 3 X 3 X 3 X X 3 X Dearnevale DS0000065489.V299455.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 25 Are there any outstanding requirements from the last inspection? Not applicable 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 YA34 Regulation 19 Requirement The home must make sure they get a full employment history, and a satisfactory written explanation of any gaps in employment, before new staff are recruited. The home must make sure the local authority’s and the home’s adult protection procedures are available to staff. Staff must be informed about the contents of the adult protection policies and procedures. Timescale for action 31/07/07 2 YA23 13 31/07/07 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 Refer to Standard YA6 YA13 Good Practice Recommendations The home should review each resident’s care plan and include the resident’s likes, dislikes and preferences into each area of the plan. The home should consult with each resident and seek their views about visits to the community. DS0000065489.V299455.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 26 Dearnevale 3 YA22 The home should look at how it can meet the needs of any residents who wish to visit the community more often. This should be discussed with the resident, and agreed in a care plan if necessary. The complaints procedure in the entrance hall should be replaced with a larger print easy to read version. Dearnevale DS0000065489.V299455.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 27 Commission for Social Care Inspection Sheffield Area Office Ground Floor, Unit 3 Waterside Court Bold Street Sheffield S9 2LR 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 Dearnevale DS0000065489.V299455.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 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!