Inspection on 18/09/06 for Elliott House

This inspection was carried out on 18th September 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 8 statutory requirements (actions the home must comply with) as a result of this inspection.

Other inspections for this house

Elliott House 11/09/07

Similar services:

Larch Avenue

Alderson Road 12

Cranworth Close Registered Care Home

Muston Road (70)

Grayling

The Cornerstone

John Street Nursing Home

Pennine Camphill

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

CARE HOME ADULTS 18-65 Elliott House Elliott House Rotherham Road Great Houghton Barnsley South Yorkshire S72 0BZ Lead Inspector Mrs Sue Stephens Key Unannounced Inspection 18th September 2006 11:50 Elliott House DS0000066960.V308612.R02.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 Elliott House DS0000066960.V308612.R02.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. Elliott House DS0000066960.V308612.R02.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 3 SERVICE INFORMATION Name of service Elliott House Address 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) Elliott House Rotherham Road Great Houghton Barnsley South Yorkshire S72 0BZ 01226 758655 01226 759972 londonroad@tiscali.co.uk Milbury Care Services Limited Mrs Rachel Chovil McGarry Care Home 6 Category(ies) of Learning disability (6), Mental disorder, registration, with number excluding learning disability or dementia (6), of places Physical disability (2) Elliott House DS0000066960.V308612.R02.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 4 SERVICE INFORMATION Conditions of registration: 1. One named service user over the age of 65 years may be accommodated. This is Elliott Houses’ first inspection. Date of last inspection Brief Description of the Service: Elliott House is a care home for people with learning disabilities. Milbury Care Services Ltd provides the care and accommodation. The home provides care for people with complex emotional and physical needs. The house is purpose built, and stands in its own grounds with garden, patio area and car parking. The home has six single bedrooms, each have en-suite facilities. The home is on one level and can accommodate people who are wheelchair users. There is a spacious lounge, kitchen/dining area and an activities room. Two bedrooms have kitchen facilities and space for additional furniture. The bedrooms and shared spaces exceed the National Minimum Standards for room sizes. There are good amenities, for example shops, pubs, a church and leisure facilities close to the home. There is a shopping centre a short drive from the home, and there is public transport into Barnsley town. The manager provided the information about the homes fees and charges on 16 August 2006. Fees range from £1520 to £1900 per week. Additional charges include travel costs, hairdressing, social activities, and holidays. Prospective residents and their families can get information about Elliott House by contacting the manager. The home will also provide a copy of the statement of purpose and the latest inspection report. Elliott House DS0000066960.V308612.R02.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 11:50am and 16:45pm. The inspector sought the views of the service users, 1 relative, and 1 staff. The manager assisted the inspector with the visit. During the visit the inspector looked at the environment, and made observations on the staffs’ manner and attitude towards the residents. The inspector checked samples of documents that related to the residents care and safety. After the visit the inspector spoke to one visiting professional about their opinion of the home. The inspector respected the wishes of residents who said they did not wish to speak to the inspector. The inspector observed residents who were unable to say what they thought about the home. The inspector checked a sample of records. These included two assessments and care plans, three medication records, two staff recruitment files, and training 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). The Commission for Social Care Inspection received a concern about an incident at the home. The manager followed the concern up. She worked with other agencies to make sure the residents’ were safe; and made sure the home continued to respect residents’ wishes. Five residents lived at Elliott House, and the home had one vacancy. The inspector did not issue questionnaires to people at the home, their family and friends and visiting professionals on this inspection. This was the homes first inspection; the inspector checked all key standards as part of this inspection. The inspector would like to thank the residents, family member, staff and manager for their help and contribution to the inspection. Elliott House DS0000066960.V308612.R02.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 6 What the service does well: What has improved since the last inspection? This is the homes first inspection. Elliott House DS0000066960.V308612.R02.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 7 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. Elliott House DS0000066960.V308612.R02.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 Elliott House DS0000066960.V308612.R02.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): 1 and 2 The quality outcome of this area is adequate. This judgement has been made from evidence gathered both during and before the visit to the service. Prospective residents (and their representatives) have the information they need to choose if Elliott house will meet their needs. They have their needs assessed; however they do not get all the information they need about charges and their terms and conditions. EVIDENCE: The relative said the home gave them information about the home before their family member chose to live at the home. This helps prospective residents to decide if Elliot House is the right care home for them. Elliott House assessed a persons needs before they offered them a place in the home. The manager said she looked at other agencies assessments as well as their own to make a decision about whether Elliott House could meet a residents needs. The manager said residents were encouraged to be involved in their assessments. The relative said the home gave their family member good opportunities to say what they wanted. She said it was “really well done”, “very personal” and included the relative in the whole process. Elliott House DS0000066960.V308612.R02.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 10 The senior staff said she looked at people’s assessments before drawing up care plans with the residents. The home did not have a copy of people’s terms and conditions. And they did not have information about how they charged individual residents for the homes lease car or use of other transport. Sometimes residents chose not to use the homes transport; the home did not have a system to make sure that the transport charges were fair and proportionate. This should be part of the persons assessed needs and agreed terms and conditions. Elliott House DS0000066960.V308612.R02.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 11 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 adequate. This judgement has been made from evidence gathered both during and before the visit to the service. Individuals are involved in decisions about their lives, and they can have an active role in planning the care and support they receive. However their care plans do not support this enough. EVIDENCE: The inspector checked two care plans. The care plans were not in good order. Information was difficult to find and there was no system to follow. Some of the daily records were inconsistent. The plans did not support a person centred approach. The manager said she was aware of this. She said she had ordered new folders and dividers and would replace the care plans. Elliott House DS0000066960.V308612.R02.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 12 The senior carer gave good examples about how residents were encouraged to make daily choices and decisions. For example, she said she would take time to sit and talk to people about what they wanted. The senior carer also said they supported residents decisions by making them part of their agreed plans of action. The home had carried out risk assessments for individual residents. These formed part of the care plan. Elliott House DS0000066960.V308612.R02.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 13 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 are able to make choices about their life style; they have support to develop their life skills. The home is starting to develop social, educational, cultural and recreational activities for the residents. EVIDENCE: During the visit residents were involved in their chosen activities. For example some were out shopping or walking and others relaxed in the lounge area. Staff were available to support people who needed assistance to go out. The home had a relaxation room with soft lights and seating, the room also used for activities. The senior staff said residents chose the room to draw, write letters or listen to music. Elliott House DS0000066960.V308612.R02.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 14 The residents’ proposed package of care highlighted their preferred daily routines and activities. The manager said that because the home was new, and because most of the residents had only just moved in structured activities had not yet fully developed. The senior carer said daily activities included walks to the local community, sometimes to the shops, or some people liked to visit the wetlands or watch a local construction site. The senior carer said they also offered the residents outings in the car. The home encouraged residents to maintain friendships. For example they had supported two people to visit places where they use to live, and visit family and friends. The relative said staff always made her feel welcome, and the visiting professional said the relatives she spoke to felt welcomed at the home. The relative said she was pleased with the quality of the food at the home. She said staff bought the kind of food her family member especially liked. There was a varied menu, this altered weekly. The manager said she was reviewing the menu because new people at the home had different likes and dislikes. The senior staff said they used the menu as a guide only. Residents could choose what they fancied to eat on a daily basis. There was good stocks of fresh and varied food and a choice of snacks and drinks available. Staff made a record of the meals the residents had. Some staff had not filled these in. This meant that staff did not know what residents had had, to make sure they were getting a varied and balanced diet. Elliott House DS0000066960.V308612.R02.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 adequate. This judgement has been made from evidence gathered both during and before the visit to the service. People receive health and personal care based on their individual needs. The residents are treated with dignity and respect. Some of the medication records and medication storage is not safe. EVIDENCE: The assessment identified the residents’ health care needs. The care plans did not sufficiently support their health care needs. For example the information was not easy to find or refer to. See requirement for care plans. The relative said staff at the home understood her family members health needs. And was “impressed” with the care from the staff. Staff followed good procedures and they contacted the appropriate health care professionals for advice when a resident recently became unwell. Elliott House DS0000066960.V308612.R02.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 16 The clinical professional said the home made appropriate referrals and “took on board my suggestions, information and advice”. The manager said the home had just changed to a new pharmacist. There was a new system to follow and staff had been on training. The manager said she had changed to a new pharmacist to improve the medication systems and make them safer. Staff had failed to make safe records about the medication they administered (or the reason it was missed). This put the residents at risk of getting too much or too little medication. The medication cabinet had too much stock in it. This made it difficult to see which medication should be used first, and who it belonged to. Homely remedies did not have labels to identify the resident and what it was for. Elliott House DS0000066960.V308612.R02.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. There is a complaints procedure and residents can express their concerns. The homes policies safeguard the residents from risk of abuse. Local Authority training can further improve this by making staff more aware of local procedures. EVIDENCE: The home had a complaints procedure and this was available in the entrance of the hall. Social services and the commission received a concern about the home. The manager worked closely with the agencies to investigate the concerns. As a result the home reviewed the safety of residents while still supporting their right to freedom and choice. The home handled this well and followed good practice guidelines. The professional visitor said she was confidant staff would listen if she raised concerns. The home had adult protection procedures available in the office, they were easy for staff to find and refer to if they needed. Elliott House DS0000066960.V308612.R02.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 18 All the staff had received adult protection guidance as part of their induction and LDAF training (Learning Disabilities Award Framework). This was done inhouse. The inspector advised the manager to access the Barnsley Local Authority adult protection training. This would help staff network and understand the local authorities principles and ways of working. Elliott House DS0000066960.V308612.R02.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 19 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 adequate. This judgement has been made from evidence gathered both during and before the visit to the service. The physical design and layout of the home enables the residents to live in a safe, well-maintained and comfortable environment, this promotes their independence, comfort and wellbeing. Routine cleaning in some areas was not enough to keep the home safe and clean. EVIDENCE: The home was spacious and decorated in light and inviting colours. The décor and furnishings were comfortable and homely. For example the lounge had a large soft leather settee and chairs and there was a farmhouse table and chairs in the kitchen. The garden had sturdy, good quality garden furniture and the activities room was very well equipped with relaxation equipment, for example sensory lights and tactile walls. Elliott House DS0000066960.V308612.R02.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 20 The visiting clinical professional described the home as “clean, tidy and well maintained”. The inspector checked two rooms; they were spacious and comfortable. The bedding was fresh and clean and residents had personalised them to their own taste. Staff encouraged and supported the residents with their individual styles and successes. For example staff had displayed one residents certificates and trophies in the resident’s room where the resident could see them from where they sat. One resident’s bedroom was not kept clean enough to meet the resident’s needs and minimise cross infection. The freezer had broken and was waiting for repair. Although the freezer had been emptied and out of use for several days the inside had not been cleaned. There were food spills in the fridge and there was an accumulation of crumbs in the breadbin and on the work surfaces. The crumbs were not fresh from the previous meal. Elliott House DS0000066960.V308612.R02.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 21 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 adequate. This judgement has been made from evidence gathered both during and before the visit to the service. Care provided by staff met the expectations of the residents and their families. However the lack of National Vocational Qualifications and non-violent intervention training puts staff at risk of following poor practices. And puts the residents at risk of receiving inconsistent and unsafe care. EVIDENCE: The care staff interviewed had a good understanding about the residents needs. And was able to describe how to approach and support residents who had complex behaviours and specific preferences. The relative said they had met all members of the staff team and made the following comments about them: “Without exception” they are “caring, friendly and chatty” “Efficient” and “everyone seems to know what they are doing” “Really impressed”. The relative said their family member was “comfortable” with the staff. The visiting clinical professional said the staff were “friendly and welcoming”. Elliott House DS0000066960.V308612.R02.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 22 Only 22 of the staff team had a National Vocational Qualification in care. The home needs to meet the National Minimum Standard of 50 to make sure the staff team continue to provide safe, consistent and up-to-date support to the residents. Some of the recruitment information was not available and the manager could not demonstrate the she had checked new employees statements about their mental and physical health. This information is important to the manager because of her responsibilities to maintain an effective staff team. One resident’s care package said all staff had received non-violent intervention training. However most staff were not trained, this put the residents and staff at risk of harm and injury. The information in the care package was misleading. Elliott House DS0000066960.V308612.R02.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 23 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 management and administration of the home is based on openness and respect. There is an effective quality assurance system and staff follow safe working practice procedures. EVIDENCE: Through the Commission for Social Care Inspection registration process the manager demonstrated she was qualified and experienced to manage the home. Elliott House DS0000066960.V308612.R02.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 24 There were some good quality assurance systems that kept the home informed about how good the care and service was. For example the home had a complaints procedure on display, the manager carried out audits on records and staff practices and the home gave residents “I am worried” post cards. (The postcards allowed residents to write to someone outside the home. Residents could tell them what they were worried about; Milbury Care would then follow this up). The provider carried out a regular visit and audit of the home. The information in the reports was limited and did not identify areas for improvements and the action the home had to take. The home had safe working practice procedures in place for example, fire drills and fire checks, maintenance checks and staff training. Elliott House DS0000066960.V308612.R02.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 25 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 3 23 2 ENVIRONMENT Standard No Score 24 3 25 X 26 X 27 X 28 X 29 X 30 2 STAFFING Standard No Score 31 X 32 2 33 X 34 2 35 2 36 X CONDUCT AND MANAGEMENT OF THE HOME Standard No 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 Score 2 3 X 3 x LIFESTYLES Standard No Score 11 X 12 3 13 3 14 X 15 3 16 3 17 2 PERSONAL AND HEALTHCARE SUPPORT Standard No 18 19 20 21 Score 3 3 2 X 3 X 2 X X 3 X Elliott House DS0000066960.V308612.R02.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 26 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 YA1 Regulation 5 Requirement A copy of the terms and conditions in respect of accommodation and fees must be provided to the residents or their advocates. The manager must be made aware of each resident’s terms and conditions, and fees. The terms and conditions relating to how the residents are charged for transport and the homes lease car must be set out in the residents’ contracts. The information must be made available to the residents or their advocates, the manager and the commission for social care inspection. Residents’ information must be 31/10/06 stored securely and in a way that information can be easily accessed. Each resident must have a care plan that demonstrates their assessed needs and the action staff must take to meet those Elliott House DS0000066960.V308612.R02.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 27 Timescale for action 31/10/06 2 YA6 15 and 17 needs. Consistent records must be made about the residents’ care and progress. The home must make sure that staff are consistent in recording residents’ meals. Medication administration records must be signed on every event. Homely remedies must be stored and administered in line with the homes procedures. The home must operate a safe and effective stock control for all medicines and creams. A daily cleaning routine must be carried out in the resident’s bedroom where hygiene control is an assessed need. Staff must be reminded about the importance of good kitchen hygiene. This must include regular cleaning of the fridge, freezer, breadbin and work surfaces. The home must make sure staff are consistent in taking fridge and freezer temperatures. Arrangements must be made to make sure care staff achieve the appropriate National Vocational Qualifications. The home must be able to demonstrate that employment procedures have been followed in line with associated regulations. The manager must be able to access information about employees’ statements of physical and mental health. Elliott House DS0000066960.V308612.R02.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 28 3 4 YA17 YA20 12 13 31/10/06 31/10/06 5 YA30 13 31/10/06 6 YA32 18 30/11/06 7 YA34 19 31/10/06 8 YA35 18 Milbury Care Services Ltd must make sure that the staff receive the non-violent intervention training as identified in the residents’ proposed care packages. 31/10/06 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 YA20 Good Practice Recommendations Following the introduction of a new medication system, staff should be assessed for their competence and understanding of the new system. The manager should check with the pharmacist for advice on the storage of creams. The home should encourage residents (who are able) to develop their financial independence by signing for their own monies. The home should refer staff for adult protection training with the Barnsley Local Authority. This will help staff to understand local policies and procedures. The provider visit reports should contain better written detail about the outcomes of the visit. 2 YA23 3 YA39 Elliott House DS0000066960.V308612.R02.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 29 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 Elliott House DS0000066960.V308612.R02.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 30 - 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!