Inspection on 06/12/05 for Goddard Avenue (153)

This inspection was carried out on 6th December 2005.

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 1 statutory requirements (actions the home must comply with) as a result of this inspection.

Other inspections for this house

Goddard Avenue (153) 19/06/09

Goddard Avenue (153) 19/06/07

Goddard Avenue (153) 15/06/05

Goddard Avenue (153) 09/03/05

Goddard Avenue (153) 21/12/04

Goddard Avenue (153) 19/01/04

Similar services:

2 Perhaver Park

The Vicarage

St George`s

5 Seafield Road

Credence House

Radfords

Honeybourne House

32 Beaumont Way

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

CARE HOME ADULTS 18-65 Goddard Avenue (153) 153 Goddard Avenue Old Town Swindon Wiltshire SN1 4HX Lead Inspector Unannounced Inspection 6th December 2005 12:40 Goddard Avenue (153) DS0000003212.V273278.R01.S.doc Version 5.0 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 Goddard Avenue (153) DS0000003212.V273278.R01.S.doc Version 5.0 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. Goddard Avenue (153) DS0000003212.V273278.R01.S.doc Version 5.0 Page 3 SERVICE INFORMATION Name of service Goddard Avenue (153) Address 153 Goddard Avenue Old Town Swindon Wiltshire SN1 4HX 01793 644643 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) mo.latimer@mencap.org.uk H4037@mencap.org.uk Royal Mencap Society Ms Maureen Latimer Care Home 6 Category(ies) of Learning disability (6), Physical disability (1) registration, with number of places Goddard Avenue (153) DS0000003212.V273278.R01.S.doc Version 5.0 Page 4 SERVICE INFORMATION Conditions of registration: 1. This home is registered for 6 persons in the category LD, and 1 of these may be in the category PD 15th June 2005 Date of last inspection Brief Description of the Service: 153 Goddard Avenue is registered to care for six people with a learning disability. The home is one of many run by Mencap and Ms Maureen Latimer is the Registered Manager. New Era Housing Association Ltd owns the property. The home is a large terraced house covering three floors in a residential area of Old Town, Swindon. All the bedrooms are single and there is a comfortable lounge and kitchen diner. The home is domestic in style and has a small garden with a patio area to the rear. The home operates a non-smoking policy and therefore all smoking is done outside. There is a minimum of one member of staff on duty throughout the waking day although this is sometimes increased to two in order to support people to access social activities. At night one member of staff sleeps in and there is an on call system. Goddard Avenue (153) DS0000003212.V273278.R01.S.doc Version 5.0 Page 5 SUMMARY This is an overview of what the inspector found during the inspection. The inspection and preparation took six hours. The inspector spoke to four people who lived in the home, three members of staff and the manager, read records, including personal notes and medication records, and looked at the accommodation. A pre-inspection questionnaire was received and information from this was used in compiling this report. What the service does well: People were supported to take risks as part of an independent lifestyle. Each person had a series of individual risk assessments, which focused on promoting independence and the benefits of participating in activities, which may pose a risk. Action was taken to minimise risks. People were able to take part in age, peer and culturally appropriate activities. They had a range of daytime activities including paid work, work experience, attendance at resource centres and drop in centre. People were supported to manage their own finances. People’s rights were respected and their responsibilities were recognised in their daily lives. Staff respected people’s privacy and did not enter their rooms without permission. Some people had keys to the font door. Any restrictions such as smoking outside were agreed with people and recorded in their plans. People were supported to do their own washing, shopping, cleaning and cooking. People were offered a healthy diet and enjoyed their meals and mealtimes. Staff supported people to choose a healthy menu, shop for their food and cook. One person was learning to cook and shop independently. People received personal support in ways that they preferred and required. Most people managed their personal care independently although staff assisted some people with bathing water temperatures. People had the aids and adaptations they required and the specialist advice that they needed from the community team. People managed their own medication when able and were protected by the home’s policies and procedures for dealing with medicines. Staff assisted two people to take their medication, which was appropriately stored and accurate records were kept. The others took their own medication and had individual locked storage space. Goddard Avenue (153) DS0000003212.V273278.R01.S.doc Version 5.0 Page 6 The accommodation was comfortable, clean, domestic in style and covered three floors. There was a comfortable lounge, a large kitchen/diner, two bathrooms, a shower room and a small rear garden with patio area. Each person had their own room with their own personal furniture and belongings. One room had an en-suite shower. People had chosen the décor and carpets for their own and the communal rooms. People lived in a homely comfortable environment, where shared spaces complemented people’s individual rooms and were clean and hygienic. Their bedrooms suited their individual lifestyles and promoted independence. Toilets and bathrooms provided sufficient privacy and met people’s individual needs. There were sufficient staff on duty to support people. Several staff had worked in the home for many years and were familiar with people’s needs. They had a range of training provided by the organisation. One member of staff had a social work qualification and some were working towards National Vocational Qualifications. People were supported by an effective staff team, who were appropriately trained, experienced, competent and qualified. Staff had regular supervision with the manager and annual appraisals. People benefited from well supported and supervised staff. The manager had a registered general nursing qualification and was working towards the Registered Managers Award. There were appropriate organisational policies and procedures so that people were benefiting from a well run home. There was a range of appropriate health and safety measures so that people’s health, safety and welfare was promoted and protected. 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. Goddard Avenue (153) DS0000003212.V273278.R01.S.doc Version 5.0 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 Goddard Avenue (153) DS0000003212.V273278.R01.S.doc Version 5.0 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 at least once during a 12 month period. JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for the following standard(s): These standards were not assessed at this inspection. EVIDENCE: Goddard Avenue (153) DS0000003212.V273278.R01.S.doc Version 5.0 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 at least once during a 12 month period. JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for the following standard(s): 9 People were supported to take risks as part of an independent lifestyle. EVIDENCE: Each person had a series of individual risk assessments, which focused on promoting independence and the benefits to people of participating in activities, which may pose a risk. For example, one person had a detailed risk assessment to enable them to stay in the house alone in order to develop their independence. Another person had a risk assessment about going to the shop unaccompanied in order to promote their independence. There was a missing persons’ policy and a procedure to follow if someone went missing. Goddard Avenue (153) DS0000003212.V273278.R01.S.doc Version 5.0 Page 10 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, 16, 17 People were able to take part in age, peer and culturally appropriate activities. People’s rights were respected and their responsibilities were recognised in their daily lives. People were offered a healthy diet and enjoyed their meals and mealtimes. EVIDENCE: People had a range of day time activities. One person worked at the Post Office and a horticultural day service. Another person worked at a café in the centre of town and also went to a drop in centre. A third person attended the drop in centre and a resource centre and was hoping to start some volunteer work. Staff supported all the people, who lived in the home, to manage their finances. On the day of inspection one person went to the bank with staff support. Staff asked permission from a person before entering their bedroom. All the bedroom doors were lockable although no one had chosen to have a key. Goddard Avenue (153) DS0000003212.V273278.R01.S.doc Version 5.0 Page 11 Some people had a key to the front door. If a person was unable to use a key this was recorded in their care plan. People’s preferred form of address was recorded in their personal plan. Staff were observed talking and interacting with the people who lived in the home, not just each other. There were few restrictions except the kitchen was kept locked at night because of the needs of one person. This restriction was recorded in each person’s plan. The home had a no smoking policy and people who wished to smoke went outside. People’s independence was promoted. They did their own washing and cleaning with support and prepared drinks. They took turns to cook the evening meal with support and to wash up and lay the table. One person was being supported to learn to cook and shop independently. There was a varied menu and breakfast, lunch, dinner and supper were provided, with drinks and snacks available throughout the day. People were supported to choose the menus. Each person chose the meal they were going to cook. An alternative was provided if someone did not like the meal being provided. Special dietary needs were addressed. One person needed all their meals to be pureed and also took a dietary supplement. Mealtimes were relaxed and fitted in with people’s activities. People could choose where to eat their meals but most chose the dining area, while one preferred the lounge. Goddard Avenue (153) DS0000003212.V273278.R01.S.doc Version 5.0 Page 12 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, 20 People received personal support in ways that they preferred and required. People managed their own medication when able and were protected by the home’s policies and procedures for dealing with medicines. EVIDENCE: People managed their personal care independently, although some had help with running the bath water and testing the temperature. Staff provided any support needed in the privacy of the bedroom and the bathroom. Times for getting up and going to bed were flexible. People chose their own clothes, hairstyles and make-up. There were few aids and adaptations but one person had some grab rails, a new bed and a downstairs room and shower. People had access to specialist advice and support from therapists and community nurses through the community team for people with learning disabilities. There was a keyworker system. Staff worked closely with relatives and other professionals with a person’s consent. There was a policy about medication. Each person’s consent to medication was obtained and recorded in their plan. Several people looked after their own medication and had a locked box to keep it in. Records were kept of when medication was handed over to them and they took their medication Goddard Avenue (153) DS0000003212.V273278.R01.S.doc Version 5.0 Page 13 independently. Staff administered medication to two people. There were records of all medication received into the home, administered, returned and destroyed. There was a requirement made at the last inspection about the accuracy of medication records. This had been addressed and there were no gaps in the administration sheets. All staff except one had completed a distance-learning course at Swindon College about medication. The new member of staff was about to start the course. The pharmacist provided advice and visited three times a year. Goddard Avenue (153) DS0000003212.V273278.R01.S.doc Version 5.0 Page 14 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): These standards were not assessed; they were met at the last inspection. EVIDENCE: Goddard Avenue (153) DS0000003212.V273278.R01.S.doc Version 5.0 Page 15 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, 25, 26, 27, 30 People lived in a homely comfortable environment, where shared spaces complemented people’s individual rooms and were clean and hygienic. People’s bedrooms suited their individual lifestyles and promoted independence. Their toilets and bathrooms provided sufficient privacy and met their individual needs. EVIDENCE: The accommodation was comfortable, clean, domestic in style and covered three floors. There was a comfortable lounge, a large kitchen/diner, two bathrooms and a shower room and a small rear garden with patio area. People had chosen the décor and carpets for their own and the communal rooms. The environmental health officer had visited recently and reported that the kitchen arrangements were of a good standard. Two new chairs had been ordered for the living room to meet the needs of two people. The home had a nonsmoking policy and therefore anyone wishing to smoke did so outside. There was an office and staff sleeping in room. Goddard Avenue (153) DS0000003212.V273278.R01.S.doc Version 5.0 Page 16 Each person had a single room, which they had personalised. People had the opportunity to have all of the furniture as stated within the standard although some had declined items such as a table. Each person had different furniture according to their needs and wishes. A new bed had recently been ordered for one person to meet their changing needs. People had chosen not to have keys to their rooms although there were locks on the doors. The provision of furniture and keys was recorded in the individual plans. Rooms did not have a telephone line although people had access to the home’s cordless telephone as required. The home had one en-suite room with a toilet and shower. There were also two bathrooms with a bath and toilet and an additional shower room. A separate toilet was located on the ground floor. All facilities were lockable and were close to communal areas and private accommodation. There was a separate laundry room and people were supported to do their own washing and ironing. Goddard Avenue (153) DS0000003212.V273278.R01.S.doc Version 5.0 Page 17 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, 33, 34, 35, 36 People were supported by an effective staff team, who were appropriately trained, experienced, competent and qualified. People were not fully protected by the home’s recruitment practices. People benefited from well supported and supervised staff. EVIDENCE: Through discussion and observation it was evident that the staff had established relationships with the people who lived in the home. There was communication on a day-to-day basis and staff were observed briefing each other about events during a shift. Many staff members had worked with people over a long period of time and were aware of their needs. Two members of staff were working towards National Vocational Qualification Level 3. One had a social work qualification and the manager was working towards the registered manager’s award. A new member of staff had undertaken specialist induction and foundation training for working with people with learning disabilities. The staff rota showed that there was one person on duty at all times during the waking day and sleeping in at night. The home had 228.5 staffing hours per week. There were additional staff to provide support to people when Goddard Avenue (153) DS0000003212.V273278.R01.S.doc Version 5.0 Page 18 participating in activities and going out and also at weekends. Two people needed support so that they could go out. One person had recently retired from their day placement and eighteen additional hours had been provided, since October 2005, to support them with daytime activities. The manager reviewed staffing levels to reflect people’s changing needs. The local community team provided specialist services, such as physiotherapy and occupational therapy. There was occasional use of agency staff. There was a recruitment procedure and prospective candidates completed an application form and had an interview. There had been one new member of staff who had transferred from another Mencap home. All the required recruitment checks had been completed in their previous post, and copies were available in the home, except they had been employed before a Protection of Vulnerable Adults check was required. This check must be completed for this person. All staff received a copy of the General Social Care Council Code of Conduct and Practice and a statement of terms and conditions. There was a plan of training and each member of staff identified their training needs in supervision and appraisal. Each member of staff was required to have training in first aid, food hygiene, manual handling, fire safety and health and safety. The records showed that this was updated as required. Staff had also recently completed a medication course. Two staff were working towards NVQ Level 3 and one had completed specialist induction and foundation training. Records showed that regular staff had supervision with the manager every two months. Those staff who only worked a few hours did not have supervision so frequently. Discussion generally covered individual people’s needs and service provision, roles and responsibilities, training and personal development. The manager had received training about supervision and appraisal. There were annual appraisals. Goddard Avenue (153) DS0000003212.V273278.R01.S.doc Version 5.0 Page 19 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): People were benefiting from a well run home. People’s health, safety and welfare was promoted and protected. EVIDENCE: The manager had a registered general nursing qualification and was working towards the Registered Managers Award. She had a range of other relevant training and the records showed that she kept her training up to date. The organisation’s policies and procedures were developed centrally and staff and service user representatives were involved. The building appeared well maintained and all staff were reported to be up to date with their mandatory training. The fire logbook demonstrated satisfactory fire safety measures and there was a fire risk assessment. All staff have recently undertaken fire training. People had a number of detailed risk assessments in their files. Radiator covers had been fitted to communal areas but not private accommodation. However, each person had a risk assessment Goddard Avenue (153) DS0000003212.V273278.R01.S.doc Version 5.0 Page 20 in relation to radiators. Water temperatures were monitored and each person had been assessed as capable of regulating their own water temperatures for bathing. There were window restrictors on the bedroom windows. There were records of annual Portable Appliance testing, five yearly electrical wiring checks and annual servicing of the boiler. Hazardous substances were locked in the shed and there was information about Control of Substances Hazardous to Health. The manager was reviewing COSHH assessments. A new infection control manual had recently been obtained to provide information for staff. Staff received training in first aid, manual handling, food hygiene and health and safety. A food safety hazard analysis had been conducted and the environmental health officer had visited and was satisfied with the arrangements. Fridge and freezer temperatures and the temperatures of hot food were taken and recorded. There was a general work place risk assessment and more specific risk assessments about safe working practices. The general risk assessment had identified some areas, which needed attention, and the manager was addressing these. Goddard Avenue (153) DS0000003212.V273278.R01.S.doc Version 5.0 Page 21 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 CONCERNS AND COMPLAINTS Standard No 1 2 3 4 5 Score X X X X x Standard No 22 23 Score x x ENVIRONMENT INDIVIDUAL NEEDS AND CHOICES Standard No 6 7 8 9 10 Score x x x 3 x Standard No 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 STAFFING Score 3 3 3 3 x x 3 LIFESTYLES Standard No Score 11 x 12 3 13 x 14 x 15 x 16 3 17 Standard No 31 32 33 34 35 36 Score x 3 3 2 3 3 CONDUCT AND MANAGEMENT OF THE HOME 3 PERSONAL AND HEALTHCARE SUPPORT Standard No 18 19 20 21 Goddard Avenue (153) Score 3 x 3 x Standard No 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 Score 3 X X X X 3 x DS0000003212.V273278.R01.S.doc Version 5.0 Page 22 No Are there any outstanding requirements from the last inspection? STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS This section sets out the actions, which must be taken so that the registered person/s meets the Care Standards Act 2000, Care Homes Regulations 2001 and the National Minimum Standards. The Registered Provider(s) must comply with the given timescales. No. 1. Standard YA34 Regulation 13-(6) Requirement The registered person must ensure that the member of staff who transferred from another service has a protection of vulnerable adults check. All future new staff must have all the appropriate checks. Timescale for action 06/12/05 RECOMMENDATIONS These recommendations relate to National Minimum Standards and are seen as good practice for the Registered Provider/s to consider carrying out. No. Refer to Standard Good Practice Recommendations Goddard Avenue (153) DS0000003212.V273278.R01.S.doc Version 5.0 Page 23 Commission for Social Care Inspection Chippenham Area Office Avonbridge House Bath Road Chippenham SN15 2BB 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 Goddard Avenue (153) DS0000003212.V273278.R01.S.doc Version 5.0 Page 24 - 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!