Inspection on 07/05/08 for Fairwinds

This inspection was carried out on 7th May 2008.

CSCI found this care home to be providing an Poor service.

The inspector found there to be outstanding requirements from the previous inspection report. These are things the inspector asked to be changed, but found they had not done. The inspector also made 12 statutory requirements (actions the home must comply with) as a result of this inspection.

Other inspections for this house

Fairwinds 11/11/08

Fairwinds 10/05/07

Fairwinds 12/12/05

Fairwinds 16/06/05

Fairwinds 03/03/05

Fairwinds 19/10/04

Similar services:

Whiteley House

Tyndale Avenue

2-10 Norfolk Road

Bennfield House Nursing Home

Eastfield Residential Home

Sign Health

Springwood

Fairburn Mews

Extracts from inspection reports are licensed from CQC, this page was updated on 27/09/2008.

CARE HOME ADULTS 18-65 Fairwinds Ferham House Kimberworth Road Masbrough Rotherham South Yorkshire S61 1AJ Lead Inspector Sarah Powell Key Unannounced Inspection 7th & 14th May 2008 13:30 Fairwinds DS0000059236.V364316.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 Fairwinds DS0000059236.V364316.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. Fairwinds DS0000059236.V364316.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 3 SERVICE INFORMATION Name of service Fairwinds 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) Ferham House Kimberworth Road Masbrough Rotherham South Yorkshire S61 1AJ 01709 565800 01709 565829 fairwinds@exemplarhc.com Ferham Healthcare Ltd Nazimuddin Abdool-Raheem Care Home 20 Category(ies) of Mental disorder, excluding learning disability or registration, with number dementia (20) of places Fairwinds DS0000059236.V364316.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 4 SERVICE INFORMATION Conditions of registration: Date of last inspection 10th May 2007 Brief Description of the Service: Fairwinds is a registered home for 20 people with a mental health diagnosis. The accommodation is on two floors with lift access. Bedrooms and communal rooms are situated on both levels and there are designated smoking areas. All the bedrooms are single occupancy there are ample bathing and toileting facilities for the people living at the home. The home is attached to the main offices of the company and is within walking distance of Rotherham town centre and on a bus route. The fees at Fairwinds Care Home at the time of the inspection ranged from £1167 to £3995 per week, however this is different for each person at the home as it is calculated by the number of care hours required for each person. It is therefore necessary to contact the home for further information. Fairwinds DS0000059236.V364316.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 5 SUMMARY This is an overview of what the inspector found during the inspection. The quality rating for this service is 0 star. This means that the people who use this service experience poor quality outcomes. As part of this visit we looked in detail at how people were protected from harm This was an unannounced visit, which took place on the 7th, 14th and 15th May 2008. The first day commenced at 13:30 and finished at 15:30. The second day two inspectors attended one of which was from The Commission for Social Care Inspection’s regional enforcement team this was to look specifically at recruitment procedures as many areas of concern had been raised by Rotherham council following their visit. The second day commenced at 10:00 and finished at 17:15. The inspection was then completed on the third day and commenced at 09:30 and finished at 14:00. Feedback at the end of the third day was given to the Manager, Director and Managing Director. The visit included talking with people living at the home, a number of professionals, the manager, Regional Director, Managing Director and fourteen staff. During the visit we also walked round the building to gain an overview of the facilities. We also checked a number of records. Some survey forms were sent to people who live at the home and their relatives. At the time of this visit two of these were returned to the Commission. We did not receive an annual quality assurance assessment (AQAA) prior to the visit, however this was given to us at the site visit and the manager told us it had been sent to us. This gave information to us on how well outcomes are being met for the people using the service. It also gave us some numerical information about the service. Following the concerns raised by Rotherham Council an emergency meeting was called and Rotherham placed a suspension on admissions to safeguard the people living in Fairwinds. What the service does well: Good assessments were carried out on all perspective people who wish to live at the home, which helped determine if the home could meet their needs. Peoples mental health needs were identified and reviewed, meeting peoples mental health needs. Fairwinds DS0000059236.V364316.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 6 Activities for people were well organised, varied and met people’s needs. Maintenance records were comprehensive and up to date ensuring the safety of the people who lived there. 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. Fairwinds DS0000059236.V364316.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 Fairwinds DS0000059236.V364316.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): 2 People who use the service experience good outcomes in this area. We have made this judgement using a range of evidence, including a visit to this service. People’s individual aspirations and needs were assessed prior to moving into the home. EVIDENCE: Assessments were seen in the care plans looked at, these were very detailed and comprehensive and it was easy to determine if the needs of the person could be met by the home. Social services assessments were also seen in the care plans. This ensures the needs of people moving into the home can be met. Fairwinds DS0000059236.V364316.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): 6, 7, 9 & 10. People who use the service experience adequate outcomes in this area. We have made this judgement using a range of evidence, including a visit to this service. Peoples mental health needs were identified however people’s general health, personal care and changing needs were not identified or met, putting people at risk. EVIDENCE: The manager had developed a care plan approach for the mental health needs of the people who live in the home and this was the care pathway. They were very detailed and comprehensive clearly identifying the mental health needs of each person, however many are duplicated and could be made simpler. This would ensure all staff were able to follow the plans and meet peoples needs. Fairwinds DS0000059236.V364316.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 10 General health care needs were not identified, needs were listed but no plans of care were in place, it was not clear if peoples general health care needs were being met. Care staff told us they did not find the plans of care easy to follow and therefore did not tend to use them so were not clear on all peoples needs. It was therefore difficult to determine if the home was able to meet the peoples’ current needs, as the records were inadequate. This places people living at the home at a potential risk, which is avoidable. Nursing staff also told us they found the plans of care complicated and difficult to find the information required in the plans, making it difficult to document changes and reviews to ensure people’s needs were met. A number of people were on food and fluid chards as they had been identified at risk of not receiving enough nutritional intake. These charts were in the dining room on the table for anyone to see, these were not handled appropriately. The charts should be kept in the office for staff to have access to and complete the information to ensure people’s needs are met and information about them kept confidential. People who live in the home told us they were able to make decisions about their lives and relatives also said the people in the home were given assistance to allow this. Yet evidence was not seen in some of the plans of care that this happened. Risk assessments were seen in the plans of care and were very good, however not all risks had had been identified, or measures put in place to manage the potential risk to meet peoples needs. Fairwinds DS0000059236.V364316.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): 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 & 17. People who use the service experience good outcomes in this area. We have made this judgement using a range of evidence, including a visit to this service. People in the home take part in appropriate activities and access the local community. People with restricted mobility due to their disabilities, are given limited choices. Choice and quality of the meals was very good. EVIDENCE: Three permanent activity co-ordinators were employed two full time and one part time. There was also a fourth person seconded to activities from care, with a view to increasing the activity hours to ensure peoples needs were met. The activity co-ordinators were very knowledgeable about the people living at Fairwinds and understood their needs. Activities had considerably improved Fairwinds DS0000059236.V364316.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 12 since the last visit. Good activities were still provided in the home there was a designated craft room where the people in the home could participate in a number of craft activities, which were still enjoyed by the people. The activities outside in the community had improved, people were getting out more, to the local shops, parks, pubs and restaurants. This was meting people’s needs. Staff told us, “It would be nice if we were given a budget to be able to have a drink or a meal with the clients while we are out”. This was discussed with the regional director, there is a budget available for this, and she told us “This will be dealt with to ensure that the staff join in with the clients and make it a more pleasant experience for them”. Some people in the home had holidays booked but not all the people had been offered the opportunity to go on holiday, yet all of the people spoken to all would have liked to be offered the chance of a holiday. Staff told us “we are only able to book a caravan and this does not accommodate people with limited mobility who use a wheelchair”. This did not provide equality for the people living at Fairwinds, as their choices were limited due to their disabilities and did not meet their needs. The regional director assured us this would not occur and suitable holidays would be looked at for everyone to ensure people’s needs were met. Family links were well maintained, people and visitors all told the inspector that visitors are welcomed at any time. Private areas are available in the home as well as communal areas; people are free to choose which area they use. The home provided good quality food that was nutritious, varied and balanced. Numerous choices were available each day and meal times were very flexible. The cook regularly consulted with the people who lived at the home to determine their likes and dislikes and any special dietary requirement, this was documented and kept in the kitchen. The people at the home told the inspector that the food was very good and could eat when they wanted. People also told the inspector that a good choice of food was always offered. Fairwinds DS0000059236.V364316.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): 18, 19 & 20. People who use the service experience adequate outcomes in this area. We have made this judgement using a range of evidence, including a visit to this service. Personal support is sensitive and flexible but not all health care needs are identified and met. Medication policies and procedures were not always followed. EVIDENCE: Staff observed during the visit provided sensitive and flexible personal support and maintained peoples privacy and dignity. Health care needs of the people were assessed and procedures in place to address them, we saw this in the assessments in peoples care plans. However not all health care needs were identified on individual plans for people, it was therefore not clear if peoples health care needs were met. As plans were not in place there were no reviews of care and no evidence of changing needs of people. It was not always evident if professional advice was obtained if a person’s health care need changed. Fairwinds DS0000059236.V364316.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 14 We looked at medication policies and procedures, these were good, however not all procedures were followed. Three peoples medication administration charts were looked at in detail, when medication was crosschecked against signatures of administration, two did not tally. No explanation was given on the chart or by staff so it was not clear if it had been signed for and not given or refused by the person. A date of opening creams was not always recorded. There was no recording of the temperature in the medication storeroom. Therefore people were not always protected by the medication policies and procedures. The manager was improving disposal of medication and systems we saw that were to be implemented would improve the system and safeguard people. Fairwinds DS0000059236.V364316.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): 22 & 23. People who use the service experience poor outcomes in this area. We have made this judgement using a range of evidence, including a visit to this service. The home has a good complaints procedure however it was not always followed. There was a robust adult protection policy but staff were not aware of the procedures to follow putting people at risk. EVIDENCE: The home has a comprehensive complaints procedure and details are in the service users guide and it is displayed in the entrance hall. The relatives spoken to were aware of how to raise a concern or complaint if the need arose and felt confident approaching staff and the manager with the concerns. A number of concerns and complaints had been received since the last visit these were recorded, however it was not clear from the records we saw what the outcomes were, or if the complaint was resolved. So was not clear if peoples view were listened to and acted on. One complaint detailed in the complaints records should have been an adult safeguarding referral but had been dealt with as a complaint therefore putting people at potential risk. The Commission for Social Care Inspection had received a number of concerns from Rotherham Council following their visit. The issues they raised were looked at during our visit. Fairwinds DS0000059236.V364316.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 16 Rotherham Council had carried out a visit to the home and due to the lack of improvement over the last year since their previous visit and the issues identified regarding recruitment, an emergency meeting was called. At this meeting it was felt people could be at risk, so a suspension of admissions was placed on the home. This ensured no new people would be admitted to the home and the existing people would be safeguarded. The social worker told us, “An action plan had been given to the manager last year detailing areas that required improvement and none of the items had been addressed, and we felt this put people at risk so placed an admissions embargo on the home”. We received a copy of Rotherham Councils report following their visit and many areas of concern had been identified during our visit, which are therefore documented in this report. During this visit we looked at adult safeguarding in detail this involved asking specific questions to staff and management to ascertain peoples knowledge of safeguarding procedures and if these procedures protect people. We spoke to 15 members of staff, as part of this process, most did not know what safeguarding or protection meant, people had not received training and did not know about the policy or procedure. This did not protect people. Since the visit the providers have implemented training and some staff have attended training. Following these training two members of staff independently went to the management and disclosed two possible incidents of abuse. One incident had occurred a number of weeks previously but the staff member had not understood adult safeguarding until the training, so the disclosure was very late; this had put people at risk of potential harm. Fairwinds DS0000059236.V364316.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): 24 & 30. People who use the service experience good outcomes in this area. We have made this judgement using a range of evidence, including a visit to this service. The environment was suitable for its stated purpose and the standard of cleanliness was good. EVIDENCE: We looked around the home as part of the visit, the dining rooms had been redecorated and new floor covering had been laid, the corridors had been repainted and a number of bedrooms had been decorated, this had improved the environment for the people. Some bedrooms and communal areas still needed attention; this had been identified by the regional director and was being addressed to ensure the environment is well maintained, comfortable and safe for the people. Fairwinds DS0000059236.V364316.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 18 The manager had purchased an assisted bath, however this was not plumbed in due to problems with water pressure so could not be used to meet people’s needs. The provider had identified this and it was being addressed in order to rectify and ensure it can be used. The standard of cleanliness observed through out the home was good. Laundry facilities were provided and policies and procedures were in place for control of infection providing a clean hygienic home. Fairwinds DS0000059236.V364316.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): 32, 34 & 35. People who use the service experience poor outcomes in this area. We have made this judgement using a range of evidence, including a visit to this service. Not all staff were competent to carry out their roles, sufficient staff were on duty to meet peoples needs. Recruitment procedures did not always protect the people in the home. EVIDENCE: Serious concerns were raised by Rotherham Council regarding recruitment. Following discussion with the officer from Rotherham and details of the concerns it was decided an inspector from the Commission for Social Care Inspections regional enforcement team would attend the home. This was to look in detail at recruitment to determine if people were protected by the homes recruitment policy. We looked at 14 staff files the manager and staff had worked very hard following Rotherham Councils visit to get all the files in order and find all the relevant documentation. Fairwinds DS0000059236.V364316.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 20 Following the detailed look at the files the following issues were found • • • • Work based references on some staff files from Fairwinds rather than previous employer. some people had no evidence a Criminal record bureau check (CRB) was obtained. No evidence of supervision arrangements for people appointed and started working on strength of PoVA First pending return of full CRB. One CRB date precedes persons application and start date. These issues were discussed with the regional director who assured us they would be addressed as they were against company policy. She told us the recruitment procedure would be followed to protect people. Staff were not appropriately trained to meet the needs of the people living at Fairwinds. Staff records told us that most training for all staff was out of date. Staff told us, “We have not had much training for a while and I know my training is out of date”. The regional director had identified the training shortfall and was organising training to address this to ensure people were appropriately trained to meet people’s needs. The lack of adult safeguarding training had put people at potential risk and this is not acceptable. Fairwinds DS0000059236.V364316.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): 37, 39 & 42. People who use the service experience adequate outcomes in this area. We have made this judgement using a range of evidence, including a visit to this service. The manager was qualified and experienced, quality assurance systems were good and health and safety was maintained. However the home had not been well managed and safe working practices are not always followed. EVIDENCE: The manager is qualified and experienced to run the home, however there were staffing issues at the previous visit, which were not being managed. Visitors and staff commented that things were improving and the manager was approachable and listened. Staff said, “The moral in the home is much Fairwinds DS0000059236.V364316.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 22 improved over the last few weeks things seem to be getting better, I hope it continues because it is a much better place to work”. Staff told us communication had improved and the manger was more approachable and felt he listened and tried to address things. Staff also commented on the new regional director, said things had improved since she had been overseeing the home. Staff commented they felt there was still a long way to go but things had started moving in the right direction. The manager needs to ensure the homes policies and procedures are followed to ensure people’s needs are met. Quality assurance and quality monitoring systems were in place for the people who lived at the home, questionnaires were used to seek information and meetings with relatives and people in the home were held this was to seek their views to run the home in their interests. The health and safety procedures in the home did not always protect the people who live there. All safety checks were carried out and all certificates for gas, electrics, water, hoists were up to date. However safe working practices were not always maintained due to staff not receiving the appropriate training. The maintenance personnel employed by the home ensure the fire alarms are checked and maintained and carry out environmental checks daily to ensure the safety of the environment for the people who live there. Fairwinds DS0000059236.V364316.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 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 1 23 1 ENVIRONMENT Standard No Score 24 2 25 X 26 X 27 X 28 X 29 X 30 3 STAFFING Standard No Score 31 X 32 2 33 X 34 1 35 1 36 X CONDUCT AND MANAGEMENT OF THE HOME Standard No 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 Score 1 2 X 2 2 LIFESTYLES Standard No Score 11 X 12 3 13 3 14 2 15 3 16 3 17 3 PERSONAL AND HEALTHCARE SUPPORT Standard No 18 19 20 21 Score 3 1 2 X 2 X 3 X X 2 X Fairwinds DS0000059236.V364316.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 24 Are there any outstanding requirements from the last inspection? Yes 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 YA6 Regulation 15 Requirement All people in the home must have a plan of care to ensure their needs are met. (Old timescale 01/08/07) All people who live in the home must be supported to make decisions about their lives and this must be clearly identified in the plans of care. (Old timescale 01/08/07) Health care needs must be identified and procedures in place to address them. (Old timescale 01/08/07) People in the home must be supported by competent staff to ensure their safety. (Old timescale 01/08/07) All staff must be appropriately trained to meet people’s needs. (Old timescale 01/08/07) Timescale for action 01/10/08 2. YA7 15 01/10/08 3. YA19 15 01/10/08 4. YA32 18 01/10/08 5. YA35 18 01/10/08 Fairwinds DS0000059236.V364316.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 25 6. YA20 13(2) The registered person must make sure that all medicines are administered as prescribed so that the health & wellbeing of people living in the home is protected. (Old timescale 31/08/07) 01/10/08 7. YA20 13(2) The registered person must ensure that all medicines are stored at temperatures recommended by the manufacturer so that they are safe to use. (Old timescale 31/08/07) 01/10/08 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. YA9 YA22 YA23 YA24 YA34 13 22 13 23 19 All risk must be identified and assessments in place to protect people. Complaints must be investigated and outcomes recorded to ensure people are listened to. People must be safeguarded from abuse. The assisted bath must be reinstalled to ensure people’s needs are met. Recruitment procedures must be followed to ensure people are protected. 01/10/08 01/10/08 01/07/08 01/10/08 01/07/08 Fairwinds DS0000059236.V364316.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 26 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 YA10 YA42 YA37 YA14 Good Practice Recommendations Information must be handled appropriately and in confidence to protect people. It is important the management of the home continues to improve. The homes policies and procedures must be followed to ensure people’s needs are met. People must be offered a holiday regardless of disabilities. Fairwinds DS0000059236.V364316.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 27 Commission for Social Care Inspection North Eastern Region St Nicholas Building St Nicholas Street Newcastle Upon Tyne NE1 1NB 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 Fairwinds DS0000059236.V364316.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!