Inspection on 22/04/08 for Germaina House

This inspection was carried out on 22nd April 2008.

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

The inspector found there to be outstanding requirements from the previous inspection report but made no statutory requirements on the home.

Other inspections for this house

Germaina House 12/12/08

Germaina House 01/05/07

Germaina House 05/05/06

Germaina House 22/11/05

Germaina House 11/04/05

Germaina House 19/01/05

Germaina House 27/05/04

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

CARE HOMES FOR OLDER PEOPLE Germaina House 4 - 5 St Vincent Terrace Redcar TS10 1QL Lead Inspector Brenda Grant Key Unannounced Inspection 22nd April 2008 09:45 X10015.doc Version 1.40 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 Germaina House DS0000000103.V362494.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 Older People. 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. Germaina House DS0000000103.V362494.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 3 SERVICE INFORMATION Name of service Germaina House Address 4 - 5 St Vincent Terrace Redcar TS10 1QL 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) 01642 475740 01642 296039 annpalmer4@yahoo.co.uk Mrs Ann Palmer Mrs Ann Palmer Care Home 18 Category(ies) of Old age, not falling within any other category registration, with number (18) of places Germaina House DS0000000103.V362494.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 4 SERVICE INFORMATION Conditions of registration: 1. The registered person may provide the following category of service only: Care home only - Code PC To service users of the following gender: Either Whose primary care needs on admission to the home are within the following category: Old age, not falling within any other category - Code OP, maximum number of places: 18 The maximum number of service users who can be accommodated is: 18 1st May 2007 2. Date of last inspection Brief Description of the Service: Germaina House is a large, Victorian, converted, mid terraced house, situated in a residential area of Redcar. The home is close to all local amenities. To the front of the house there is a small lawned area. The rear patio area has been designed to provide a low maintenance planting area and a raised decking area with tables and chairs. Accommodation is provided for eighteen residents in twelve single bedrooms and three double bedrooms. Some bedrooms have en-suite facilities, which comprise of a toilet and hand washbasin. There are two lounge areas and one dining area. The kitchen and laundry whilst domestic in style are not available for use by residents. The home provides two stair lifts, to enable residents with poor mobility to access their bedrooms. The cost of care at the time of the inspection visit was £414 per week. Germaina House DS0000000103.V362494.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 1 star. This means the people who use this service experience adequate quality outcomes. The inspection was an unannounced inspection. We assessed the information from a visit to the home. The visit took place over one day, six hours and thirty minutes in total. Discussion took place with four people who used the service, two care staff, the cook, the manager’s son and the manager. We looked around the home and examined a number of records that included; files for people who used the service, staff files, health and safety and maintenance checks, accidents and kitchen documentation. What the service does well: What has improved since the last inspection? What they could do better: All of people’s care needs must be recorded. Care Plans are to include Risk Assessments, they are to be reviewed and, when necessary, updated. Risk Assessments should be personalised for each individual. People should be assessed on their ability to take control of their medication. Germaina House DS0000000103.V362494.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 6 The home is to regularly provide suitable activities for people who use the service. There must be a record of all food served at the home. Staff must complete training for safeguarding vulnerable adults. Induction training, for new staff, must be recorded. The manager must meet with staff, to gain their views about the running of the home. The manager must make sure staff are regularly supervised and keep records of supervisions. The manager must refurbish, repair and replace all areas of the home that are in a state of disrepair. The manager must complete and return by a specified date, to the Commission for Social Care Inspection, the home’s Annual Quality Assurance Assessment. All of the requirements, from the last Inspection Report, must be completed. The manager must undertake training to the equivalent of National Vocational Qualification Level 4, in care. The home’s policies and procedures must be regularly reviewed and updated where necessary. The manager should keep a record of all the meetings she has with people who use the care service. 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. Germaina House DS0000000103.V362494.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 7 DETAILS OF INSPECTOR FINDINGS CONTENTS Choice of Home (Standards 1–6) Health and Personal Care (Standards 7-11) Daily Life and Social Activities (Standards 12-15) Complaints and Protection (Standards 16-18) Environment (Standards 19-26) Staffing (Standards 27-30) Management and Administration (Standards 31-38) Scoring of Outcomes Statutory Requirements Identified During the Inspection Germaina House DS0000000103.V362494.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 8 Choice of Home The intended outcomes for Standards 1 – 6 are: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Prospective service users have the information they need to make an informed choice about where to live. Each service user has a written contract/ statement of terms and conditions with the home. No service user moves into the home without having had his/her needs assessed and been assured that these will be met. Service users and their representatives know that the home they enter will meet their needs. Prospective service users and their relatives and friends have an opportunity to visit and assess the quality, facilities and suitability of the home. Service users assessed and referred solely for intermediate care are helped to maximise their independence and return home. The Commission considers Standards 3 and 6 the key standards to be inspected. JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for the following standard(s): Standards: 3 and 6. People’s needs are assessed before moving to the home and they are assured those needs will be met. People who use the service experience good quality outcomes in this area. We have made this judgement using a range of evidence, including a visit to the service. EVIDENCE: A sample of four files, of people who used the care service, was examined. They contained assessments that were carried out by a care manager. Assessment information included general information as well as the person’s health, social and personal care needs. The home also completed admission assessment documentation. Two people who used the care service told us, before admission they were involved with the assessment process and their families had the opportunity to look around the home. The home did not offer intermediate care therefore standard six did not apply. Germaina House DS0000000103.V362494.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 9 Health and Personal Care The intended outcomes for Standards 7 – 11 are: 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. The service user’s health, personal and social care needs are set out in an individual plan of care. Service users’ health care needs are fully met. Service users, where appropriate, are responsible for their own medication, and are protected by the home’s policies and procedures for dealing with medicines. Service users feel they are treated with respect and their right to privacy is upheld. Service users are assured that at the time of their death, staff will treat them and their family with care, sensitivity and respect. The Commission considers Standards 7, 8, 9 and 10 the key standards to be inspected. JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for the following standard(s): Standards: 7, 8, 9 and 10. People’s health, personal and social care needs are met but they are not always recorded in Care Plans. People are protected by the home’s policies and procedures for dealing with medicines. People are treated with respect and their right to privacy is upheld. People who use the service experience adequate quality outcomes in this area. We have made this judgement using a range of evidence, including a visit to the service. EVIDENCE: A sample of four Care Plans were examined. The home had developed a Risk/Care Plan for each person who used the service. The documentation concentrated on areas of risk rather than all of a person’s care needs. There was some information, but not all, of the person’s care needs and how those needs would be met. Assessments of risk were completed for most but not for all subject areas where risks had been identified. There were some falls Risk Assessments, they gave general information about the area of risk but they were not personalised for each individual. The Risk Assessments, that had Germaina House DS0000000103.V362494.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 10 been completed, had details of how those risks would be managed; to reduce those risks to an acceptable level. The Risk Assessment information showed they had been reviewed and updated on a monthly basis. The record of some people’s care needs had not been updated, to reflect people’s current needs. There was no evidence that people were involved with and signed their Risk/Care Plans. Four people we spoke with were unsure what records the home kept about them. The files, of people who used the service, included healthcare visits and appointments. The records showed the regularity of visits for treatment from: doctors and District Nurses, opticians, chiropodists, dentists and other healthcare specialists. The documentation included details of the outcomes of the visits and if treatment was to be continued. On the day of the inspection ‘site’ visit, the manager and a member of staff had assisted some people to visit a chiropodist. The manager told us, there were some healthcare professionals who carried out visits to the home. A person we spoke with told us, “They make sure I am alright and call a doctor if I am poorly”. The manager told us, she made sure referrals were made when specialist equipment and/or healthcare treatment was needed. The home took satisfactory action for managing people’s medicines. The home’s senior care staff usually administered medicines. Staff files confirmed they had completed training for handling and administering medication. The medicine storage and recording was found to be satisfactory. The files, of people who used the care service, did not included assessment details so that it could be determined if a person was capable of managing their own medicines. At the time of the inspection ‘site’ visit the home did not have any people who were in control of their medication. Staff were observed being respectful to residents and knocking on bedroom doors before entering the room. One person told us, “Staff are lovely and we like how they look after us” and another person said of the staff, ”They look after us how we want to be looked after”. We noticed there was a good relationship between staff and people who lived at the home. Germaina House DS0000000103.V362494.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 11 Daily Life and Social Activities The intended outcomes for Standards 12 - 15 are: 12. 13. 14. 15. Service users find the lifestyle experienced in the home matches their expectations and preferences, and satisfies their social, cultural, religious and recreational interests and needs. Service users maintain contact with family/ friends/ representatives and the local community as they wish. Service users are helped to exercise choice and control over their lives. Service users receive a wholesome appealing balanced diet in pleasing surroundings at times convenient to them. The Commission considers all of the above key standards to be inspected. JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for the following standard(s): Standards: 12, 13, 14 and 15. In the main people have a lifestyle that suits them. Individuals have choice and control over their lives and people maintain their contacts with families and friends. We are unable to determine whether the home provides a varied and balanced diet for people who use the care service. People who use the service experience adequate quality outcomes in this area. We have made this judgement using a range of evidence, including a visit to the service. EVIDENCE: Staff told us, when they had time, they arranged for activities at the home. The notice board had a programme of activities but staff did not always have the time to organise activities each day. The record of the activities had not been completed for many months therefore it could not be determined what activities had actually taken place. The manager told us, “We try to find out what residents are interested in and arrange for activities around what people want”. The home provided for people’s religious needs, by arranging regular visits from different religious sects. The manager told us, where possible the home sometimes arranged for people to attend their own churches. Germaina House DS0000000103.V362494.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 12 People who used the service were able to have visitors. A person told us, “I have my family visit regularly and they can come anytime”. The manager told us, “There are times we take residents out, when the weather is nice”. People who used the service told us, they lived their lives as they wished. They were able to bring some of their personal possessions, to keep in their bedrooms. People told us, they could get up and go to bed whenever they wished. Individuals could choose to stay in their bedrooms or go to communal rooms. One resident told us, “I need to ask staff to help me with the lift but they take me up when I want to go to my room”. The manager told us, the home did not have any responsibility with looking after people’s finances. She said, “Families or Social Services usually look after resident’s money”. A person we spoke with told us, “The food is very good”. Three other people confirmed this was the case. Care staff prepared and cooked breakfasts and served teas but the cook made lunch and prepared teas. The manager told us, care staff and the cook had completed training for food hygiene. The home had a record of people’s special diets and most people’s preferences for breakfast. The home’s menus were examined, they informed us of the lunch and tea. The menu for lunches did not have details of the vegetables with the meal or what alternatives people had been served. The day’s menu was displayed in the dining room. We saw that the lunch was well presented and the dining area was pleasant. The food stored at the home was of there being fresh fruit and vegetables and a variety of dried, tinned and frozen foods. The cook kept a record of the food temperatures but not for fridge and freezer temperatures. Germaina House DS0000000103.V362494.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 13 Complaints and Protection The intended outcomes for Standards 16 - 18 are: 16. 17. 18. Service users and their relatives and friends are confident that their complaints will be listened to, taken seriously and acted upon. Service users’ legal rights are protected. Service users are protected from abuse. The Commission considers Standards 16 and 18 the key standards to be. JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for the following standard(s): Standards: 16 and 18. People are confident their complaints will be listened to, taken seriously and acted upon. Individuals are mainly protected from abuse by the home’s policies and procedures. People who use the service experience adequate quality outcomes in this area. We have made this judgement using a range of evidence, including a visit to the service. EVIDENCE: The home had a Complaints Procedure. It informed when people would receive a response to a complaint and details of the commissioning agency such as Social Services. People we spoke with informed us, they did not have anything to complain about and they were all satisfied with the service they received. There had been no complaints during the last twelve months. The home had a copy of the Redcar & Cleveland Inter-Agency Policies, Procedures and Practice Guidance, ‘No Secrets’, for safeguarding adults. Staff records did not confirm staff had completed training for safeguarding vulnerable adults. The manager told us, staff had an awareness of adult protection, in their induction training, but that was not recorded. A member of staff told us, s/he knew of the procedures to follow, if there was an allegation of abuse on an individual. S/he described what action s/he would take in such a circumstance. The manager told us, she was going to plan for all staff to complete training, for safeguarding vulnerable adults. Germaina House DS0000000103.V362494.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 14 Environment The intended outcomes for Standards 19 – 26 are: 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. Service users live in a safe, well-maintained environment. Service users have access to safe and comfortable indoor and outdoor communal facilities. Service users have sufficient and suitable lavatories and washing facilities. Service users have the specialist equipment they require to maximise their independence. Service users’ own rooms suit their needs. Service users live in safe, comfortable bedrooms with their own possessions around them. Service users live in safe, comfortable surroundings. The home is clean, pleasant and hygienic. The Commission considers Standards 19 and 26 the key standards to be inspected. JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for the following standard(s): Standards: 19 and 26. People who use the service live in an environment that is safe and warm but not very well-maintained. The home is clean and hygienic and mostly free from offensive odours. People who use the service experience adequate quality outcomes in this area. We have made this judgement using a range of evidence, including a visit to the service. EVIDENCE: Germaina House provided a warm and comfortable environment. The garden and ground floor were accessible to wheelchair users and people with physical disabilities. The home had employed a person to carry out routine maintenance but there were areas of the home that needed refurbishment or repair, those of: Outside • Woodwork had peeling paint Germaina House DS0000000103.V362494.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 15 One of the two stairs lifts had a chair that did not fold away. Dining room • Worn carpet • Lamp shade missing • Cabinet with a badly scratched surface Room 2 • Carpet was stained • Double glazed window was misted up • Wallpaper was peeling and stained Room 3 • Bed headboard was ripped Room 9 • Ceiling had a large crack Room 10 • Curtain rail hanging down Room 12 • En-suite floor tile was missing, the toilet seat paint had worn off and the woodwork of the boxed in piping had not been painted. • The home’s equipment was stored on the top of the wardrobes Room 13 • En-suite toilet had a frame that was badly rusted Toilet near Room 15 • Ceiling was stained Room 15 • Carpet was stained • The varnish had worn off the chair arms Fire safety measures were in place. The fire alarm weekly checks were recorded and a Fire Risk Assessment was in place. During the morning we noticed there were many bedrooms that had been held open with weights or wedges, later that day there were still two doors held open. We informed the manager that doors are not to be held open unless it was by means of an approved door hold opener. On exiting the home, we noticed the front door was locked. The manager brought a key from the kitchen to open the door. She told us, there were other front door keys with the most accessible being behind sealed glass. We queried this and asked the Fire Brigade to investigate these practices. There was an enclosed garden area at the back of the home, for the safety of the people using that unit. The garden had a paved area with seating, for people to sit outside in warmer weather. In part of the garden we saw large disused items and debris, a motor-bike and some ladders, the ladders were lying on the ground. The garden was unsightly and the ladders could be dangerous, if someone tripped and fell on them. During the day of the inspection ‘site’ visit, the area was covered over and the ladders had been removed. Germaina House DS0000000103.V362494.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 16 The home was clean, hygienic and mostly free from offensive odours. One bedroom, room 15, had a carpet that had an offensive odour. Germaina House DS0000000103.V362494.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 17 Staffing The intended outcomes for Standards 27 – 30 are: 27. 28. 29. 30. Service users’ needs are met by the numbers and skill mix of staff. Service users are in safe hands at all times. Service users are supported and protected by the home’s recruitment policy and practices. Staff are trained and competent to do their jobs. The Commission consider all the above are key standards to be inspected. JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for the following standard(s): Standards: 27, 28, 29 and 30. The numbers and skill mix of staff are satisfactory. Staff are mostly trained and competent to care for the people at the home. People are protected by the home’s recruitment procedures. People who use the service experience good quality outcomes in this area. We have made this judgement using a range of evidence, including a visit to the service. EVIDENCE: On the day of the inspection ‘site’ visits there was sufficient staff to meet the needs of the people who lived at the home. In addition to the care staff, there was domestic and kitchen staff but care staff carried out laundry duties. A Care Assistant told us, she thought there were enough staff on duty. A person who used the service told us, “Nothing is too much trouble for them. The staff are good”. The number of care staff who had successfully completed the National Vocational Qualification, to at least, Level 2 was over 78 . The home had followed the recruitment and selection procedure. We examined three staff files, they contained satisfactory references and checks with the Criminal Records Bureau, proof of identity and a photograph. Germaina House DS0000000103.V362494.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 18 A sample of staff’s training records was examined. There was no record of staff induction training but the manager and staff informed us, induction training does take place. They confirmed staff had completed basic training and the manager told us, she was to plan updates for all basic training. Germaina House DS0000000103.V362494.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 19 Management and Administration The intended outcomes for Standards 31 – 38 are: 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. Service users live in a home which is run and managed by a person who is fit to be in charge, of good character and able to discharge his or her responsibilities fully. Service users benefit from the ethos, leadership and management approach of the home. The home is run in the best interests of service users. Service users are safeguarded by the accounting and financial procedures of the home. Service users’ financial interests are safeguarded. Staff are appropriately supervised. 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 and staff are promoted and protected. The Commission considers Standards 31, 33, 35 and 38 the key standards to be inspected. JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for the following standard(s): Standards: 31, 33, 35, 36 and 38. The home is not always well managed and run in the best interests of the people using the service. The health, safety and welfare of staff and people who live at the home is mostly promoted and protected. People who use the service experience adequate quality outcomes in this area. We have made this judgement using a range of evidence, including a visit to the service. EVIDENCE: The manager had ten years experience of running a care home for older people. She had successfully completed appropriate management qualifications but had not achieved gaining National Vocational Qualification Level 4, in care, or equivalent. Staff told us, the manager gave support when it was needed. Germaina House DS0000000103.V362494.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 20 This year the home had sent quality assurance surveys to families of people who used the service. The surveys had not been sent to social and health professionals or advocates, to find out their views about the running of the home. The results of the surveys had not yet been compiled into a report. The manager did not have regular audits of the service, to determine where many improvements needed to take place but she had an annual development plan. We did not receive the home’s Annual Quality Assurance Assessment that would have given us details about the running of the home. The Annual Quality Assurance Assessment would have informed us what the home does well, how they had made improvements and what further plans they had to develop the service. The home’s policies and procedures had not been reviewed and updated yearly and four of the six requirements from the last inspection report had not been completed. There were no arrangements to have formal staff meetings, to gain staffs’ views about the running of the home. The manager told us, she and staff on duty had short breaks together when they would discuss matters about the home. There were meetings for people who used the service, approximately twice yearly, but those meetings were rarely recorded. Staff had one to one supervision approximately three times yearly. There were good communication systems within the home. Information was passed between staff groups, finishing and starting work, in a ‘handover’. A sample of health and safety records were examined and found to be in order. The manager kept an up to date record of all maintenance and checks that were required throughout the year. Checks for; electrical appliances and equipment and fire equipment were up to date. The home kept records of all accidents and there was a record for checks of the hot water outlet temperatures. The home did not have Risk Assessments for Control Of Substances Hazardous to Health. Germaina House DS0000000103.V362494.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 21 SCORING OF OUTCOMES This page summarises the assessment of the extent to which the National Minimum Standards for Care Homes for Older People 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 3 4 5 6 ENVIRONMENT Standard No Score 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 X 3 X X X N/A HEALTH AND PERSONAL CARE Standard No Score 7 2 8 3 9 2 10 3 11 X DAILY LIFE AND SOCIAL ACTIVITIES Standard No Score 12 2 13 3 14 3 15 2 COMPLAINTS AND PROTECTION Standard No Score 16 3 17 X 18 2 2 X X X X X X 2 STAFFING Standard No Score 27 3 28 3 29 3 30 2 MANAGEMENT AND ADMINISTRATION Standard No 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 Score 2 X 2 X N/A 2 X 2 Germaina House DS0000000103.V362494.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 22 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 OP7 Regulation 15 Requirement All of people’s personal care needs must be recorded in Care Plans. People must be involved with reviews of their Care Plans. Risk Assessments must be completed for all areas where it has been identified a person is at risk. Care Plan information must be updated to reflect people’s current care needs. All this information would show people’s care needs and how those needs are met. The manager must plan and provide suitable activities for people who live at the home, to ensure stimulation is provided. Previous timescale for action 01/11/07 not met. The home must keep a record of all food served at the home, so that we can determine whether people have a satisfactory diet. Staff must complete safeguarding training, for the protection of vulnerable adults. DS0000000103.V362494.R01.S.doc Timescale for action 30/06/08 2. OP12 16 30/06/08 3. OP15 17 30/06/08 4. OP18 13 30/06/08 Germaina House Version 5.2 Page 23 5. OP19 23 The manager must refurbish, replace or repair: Outside • Paint the woodwork that had peeling paint Inside Repair one of the two stairs lifts that had a chair that did not fold away. Dining room • Replace the worn carpet Previous timescale for action 01/08/07 not met • Fit a lamp shade that was missing from a lamp • Renew the cabinet that had a badly scratched surface Room 2 • Replace the stained carpet • Replace the glass of the double glazed window that was misted up • Decorate where the wallpaper was peeling and stained Room 3 • Replace the bed headboard that was ripped Room 9 • Repair and decorate the ceiling that had a large crack Room 10 • Secure the curtain rail that was hanging down Room 12 • En-suite: replace the missing floor tile and the toilet seat that had paint worn off. Paint the woodwork of the boxed in piping that had not been painted. • Remove the home’s 30/06/08 Germaina House DS0000000103.V362494.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 24 6. OP26 23 7. 8. OP30 OP31 17 18 9. OP33 24 10. OP33 21 11. OP36 18 12. OP38 17 equipment that was stored on the top of the wardrobes Room 13 • Replace the en-suite toilet frame that was badly rusted Toilet near Room 15 • Decorate the ceiling that was stained Room 15 • Replace the carpet that was stained • Re-varnish the chair arms where the varnish had worn off. All of the above is to improve the home environment. The home must replace the carpet of Room 15 that was stained and had an offensive odour. Induction training, of new staff, must be recorded. The manager must achieve a National Vocational Qualification at Level 4, or equivalent, in care. Previous timescale for action of 30/12/06 not met. The manager must complete all of the requirements as stated in the last Inspection Report. The manager must complete the Annual Quality Assurance Assessment on time, to show there has been an annual audit of the service. The manager must meet with staff, to gain their views about the conduct of the care home. Meetings must be recorded. The manager must ensure care staff receive one to one supervision at least six times yearly. Supervision must be recorded. The manager must make sure policies and procedures are DS0000000103.V362494.R01.S.doc 30/06/08 30/06/08 31/12/08 30/06/08 31/07/08 30/09/08 31/07/08 Page 25 Germaina House Version 5.2 reviewed and updated. The home must have Risk Assessments, for the Control Of Substances Hazardous to Health. 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. Refer to Standard OP7 OP9 OP33 Good Practice Recommendations Risk Assessments should be personalised for each individual. People should be assessed on their ability to take control of their own medication. The manager should keep a record of all of the meetings she has with people who use the care service. Germaina House DS0000000103.V362494.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 26 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 Germaina House DS0000000103.V362494.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 27 - Please note that this information is included on www.bestcarehome.co.uk under license from the regulator. Re-publishing this information is in breach of the terms of use of that website. Discrete codes and changes have been inserted throughout the textual data shown on the site that will provide incontrovertable proof of copying in the event this information is re-published on other websites. The policy of www.bestcarehome.co.uk is to use all legal avenues to pursue such offenders, including recovery of costs. You have been warned!