Inspection on 10/10/06 for Goddards The

This inspection was carried out on 10th October 2006.

CSCI has not published a star rating for this report, though using similar criteria we estimate that the report is Excellent. 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

Goddards The 03/11/05

Goddards The 09/12/04

Goddards The 20/07/04

Goddards The 16/03/04

Similar services:

Larch Avenue

Alderson Road 12

Cranworth Close Registered Care Home

The Cornerstone

John Street Nursing Home

Pennine Camphill

Whitwood House

Whitwood Hall

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

CARE HOME ADULTS 18-65 Goddards The Goole Road West Cowick Goole East Yorkshire DN14 9DJ Lead Inspector David White Key Unannounced Inspection 10th October 2006 09:00 Goddards The DS0000019741.V312416.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 Goddards The DS0000019741.V312416.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. Goddards The DS0000019741.V312416.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 3 SERVICE INFORMATION Name of service Goddards The Address Goole Road West Cowick Goole East Yorkshire DN14 9DJ 01405 860247 01405 869981 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) Mr Trevor Anthony Womersley Mrs Jayne Womersley Mrs Jayne Womersley Care Home 10 Category(ies) of Learning disability (10) registration, with number of places Goddards The DS0000019741.V312416.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 4 SERVICE INFORMATION Conditions of registration: Date of last inspection 3rd November 2005 Brief Description of the Service: The Goddards is a large Grade 11 listed Edwardian house built within extensive grounds, off the main road between the towns of Goole and Snaith, in the hamlet of West Cowick. The home is privately owned by Mr & Mrs Womersley , who live on the premises. There is car parking to the front of the house and large gardens surrounding the home. The home provides residential care for 8 residents, and 2 respite male and female residents with a mild to moderate learning disability. There are six single rooms and one double room; one bedroom has an en-suite facility. Shared areas within the home are spacious and comfortably furnished. The current weekly fees for the home at the time of the site visit on 10th October 2006 ranged from £346.32 to £915.92. Goddards The DS0000019741.V312416.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 5 SUMMARY This is an overview of what the inspector found during the inspection. This report follows an unannounced site visit undertaken on the 10th October 2006. This visit was carried out by one Regulation Inspector and took 6.5 hours with 4 hours preparation time. The home was able to return the requested information before this site visit. Surveys were sent out to GPs, relatives and health and social care professionals and three surveys had been returned. Information was used from the Regulation Inspector’s inspection record, which detailed the history of the home and relevant information about what had been happening in the home since the previous inspection visit. The site visit comprised of an inspection of the premises. The care records of three residents were looked at which included resident assessments, care plans and medication records. Staff rotas and health and safety documentation were inspected. Time was spent talking to two residents, a relative, two members of care staff, the administrator and the manager of the home. The activity in the home and the interaction between residents and staff was observed as well as one mealtime. The focus of the inspection was on a number of key standards and inspecting the case records of a number of residents to establish whether they corresponded with their experiences of life in the home. The manager of the home was available throughout the inspection and the findings were discussed at the end of the site visit. What the service does well: Residents received a very good standard of care from a caring, well-equipped, well-motivated and understanding staff team. A GP and two health professionals who had contact with the home described the care there as being “excellent”. Residents were encouraged to make their own choices and maintain their own independence. Residents enjoyed an excellent range of activities both in and outside of the home and could pursue their educational needs through having access to local education facilities. Residents and a relative commented that there was “so much going off”. Goddards The DS0000019741.V312416.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 6 The home had good relationships with other services and this helped to ensure that residents had good access to and received specialist healthcare support to ensure that all their needs were met. Residents at the home lived in well-maintained, attractive and comfortable surroundings and in an environment that was very homely and this promoted residents’ comfort and safety. The home was very well managed and this ensured that concerns were addressed, residents interests were safeguarded and high standards of care were maintained. 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. Goddards The DS0000019741.V312416.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 Goddards The DS0000019741.V312416.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 at least once during a 12 month period. JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for the following standard(s): 2 and 4 Quality in this outcome area was good. This judgement has been made using available evidence including a visit to this service. Proper pre-admission procedures were in place so that prospective residents can feel confident that their needs will be met by the home. EVIDENCE: The home has detailed information available to residents and their relatives about the care and services on offer at the home. Although no residents had been admitted into the home since the previous inspection visit it was noted within the care records of three residents that the home did have proper pre-admission procedures in place. All the care records contained information that had been obtained from other sources such as placing authorities before any decision had been made about whether the home would be able to meet the person’s needs. The home had also carried out their own assessment of the prospective resident’s needs and a relative of a resident said that they had both been invited to spend time at the home before any decision was made about the resident moving there. The relative commented that she had been given copies of previous inspection reports to help inform the decision-making process. Goddards The DS0000019741.V312416.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 at least once during a 12 month period. JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for the following standard(s): 6, 7 and 9 Quality in this outcome area was good. This judgement has been made using available evidence including a visit to this service. Residents were encouraged to be independent and to make their own choices and this was supported through good care planning systems that provided staff with the information to meet residents needs safely. EVIDENCE: The care records of three residents were looked at and these contained a range of information about each person including a needs assessment, personal history and a “star profile” which was a social competence assessment. Information gathered from the assessments was reflected within a care plan for each resident stating what actions were needed to meet identified needs. The care plans were specific and focused on the health, personal and social care needs and strengths of each resident and staff said that they found the care plans “easy to follow”. Each individual care record contained a large amount of very detailed information although some of it dated back a long time and it was recommended that the files were organised in a manner so that information was easier to access. Goddards The DS0000019741.V312416.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 10 Staff were observed to be encouraging residents with their independence and residents said that they were encouraged to make their own decisions and live their life as they wished and felt that they were involved in decision-making about how the home was run. Individual care records included information about residents’ preferred daily living routines. Within each resident’s care records were a number of risk assessments in relation to aspects of daily living and these focused on promoting the resident’s independence and safety. One resident occasionally exhibited verbal and physical aggression towards others and a risk assessment had been carried out in relation to this and risk management strategies had been put in place to minimise any risks from this behaviour and this included information about anger management. Regular care plan reviews were held so that changing needs could be immediately addressed to ensure the resident’s needs were met. In another resident’s care records it was noted that a risk assessment had been undertaken on a resident who was involved in a relationship so that the wellbeing of the resident was safeguarded and a risk assessment was in place for a resident who had attempted self-harm in the past. Care plan reviews were held for all residents on a regular basis and residents and their relatives were encouraged to attend these. Daily records were detailed, up to date and reflected the care that had been given. Goddards The DS0000019741.V312416.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 at least once during a 12 month period. JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for the following standard(s): 12, 13, 15, 16 and 17 Quality in this outcome area was excellent. This judgement has been made using available evidence including a visit to this service. Residents enjoyed a very fulfilling lifestyle both in and outside of the home. EVIDENCE: The home had an extensive range of social and educational opportunities available for the residents which enabled them to establish links with the local community. Some of the residents attended Goole College where one resident was doing a catering course and another one was attending writing classes. One resident said that attending the College had “given me more confidence” and improved his social skills in mixing with other people and other residents had involvement with Community Living Skills and Goole Adult Education services. Within the home there was an Arts and Crafts group and examples of the residents’ work were on display throughout the home and within individual bedrooms. On an evening there were activities on most nights if residents wanted to participate. This included visits to the cinema, local swimming baths, the leisure centre and the local pub. The home had a minibus and trips out were regularly organised in accordance with resident wishes and residents said they had enjoyed a recent outing to Bridlington. Goddards The DS0000019741.V312416.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 12 Some residents had also been on holiday to Skegness earlier on in the year. Residents said that they were really looking forward to the Halloween parties that had been arranged and had been shopping to buy their outfits. One resident told how he had enjoyed his birthday by inviting lots of his friends to a barbeque that was held in the gardens of the home to celebrate the occasion. A resident received communion from a member of the church who visited her at the home at the request of the resident request and other residents also had the opportunity to meet their religious needs. Visiting arrangements were flexible and residents could see family and friends whenever they wanted to and residents had access to a telephone in the home so that they were able to contact family and friends if they wished to do so. One of the residents was involved in a relationship and another resident said that although he did not have a girlfriend he could have if he wanted to. The home had developed a policy for relationships and sexuality to provide direction and guidance for staff on how to protect the residents rights and interests in relation to this issue. Residents said that the food was “very good”. The home employed a cook who provided the evening meal whilst staff prepared and cooked any other meals as none of the residents’ were able to cook for themselves. The cook met with residents every month to discuss the quality of the meals and suggestions for improvements. The menu choices were varied and residents could have refreshments between meals whenever they wanted within reasonable limits. Although none of the residents needed a special diet staff had received some training from a speech therapist about meeting the nutritional needs of people with swallowing difficulties. A mealtime was observed and residents were seen to be enjoying a nicely presented meal in an unhurried environment. Staff and residents ate together and the atmosphere was very relaxed with lots of good humour between the staff and residents. Goddards The DS0000019741.V312416.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 at least once during a 12 month period. JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for the following standard(s): 18, 19 and 20 Quality in this outcome area was excellent. This judgement has been made using available evidence including a visit to this service. The personal and healthcare needs of the residents were very well met with good access available to specialist services when required. EVIDENCE: Residents said that any personal support was provided in a sensitive manner and one resident commented that they had “never felt embarrassed” when being assisted in the bath by staff members. The staff were observed to treat residents with dignity and addressed them by their preferred names. One resident had continence problems during the night prior to coming to live at the home, however a relative said that since moving to the home the staff had supported the resident to overcome this. Another resident did not communicate with others before moving into the home but was now described as “the life and soul” of the home. Each resident had a GP and a dentist and had access to the local optician and a chiropodist visited the home. Referrals to specialist services were made as appropriate and some residents were receiving ongoing support from a psychologist. Goddards The DS0000019741.V312416.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 14 A number of the residents had epilepsy and had regular contact with an epilepsy nurse and there were epilepsy management plans within individual care records that gave clear instruction to the staff as to what actions needed to be taken if a resident was to have an epileptic fit. Individual care records clearly stated how a range of health needs were to be met and input from other services was clearly recorded to make sure needs were met. The residents looked very contented and happy and were observed to be getting on well with each other and a resident confirmed “everyone got on together”. Proper arrangements were in place for the administration, recording, storage and return of medication. The medication records were accurate and up to date and the manager undertook monthly medication audits to make sure that procedures were being followed. Within each resident care record there was information about when a medication review had taken place and the outcomes from this and there was a book within the medication cabinet which contained information about any changes to residents medication so that risks from medication errors were minimised. All the staff had received medication training and this included specialist training from an epilepsy nurse. A survey received from a GP said that the home provided “a very caring family environment” and surveys received from health professionals stated that the home provided “excellent care” and “worked well with outside agencies” and this was supported by the evidence from the site visit. Goddards The DS0000019741.V312416.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 at least once during a 12 month period. JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for the following standard(s): 22 and 23 Quality in this outcome area was good. This judgement had been made using available evidence including a visit to this service. Complaints and adult protection policies and procedures were in place and understood by staff to ensure that residents were safeguarded from harm. EVIDENCE: The home had a complaints procedure that clearly detailed how complaints would be dealt with and this was on display in the home. Residents and a relative were clear about whom they would need to speak to if they had any concerns and had full confidence that the management would deal with any issues in a proper manner. There had been no complaints made about the home. The home had a policy and procedure in place for the protection of vulnerable adults and staff had all attended Protection of Vulnerable Adult (POVA) training. Staff spoken to had a good understanding of what would constitute abuse and the actions that would need to be taken if abuse was suspected or had occurred. Risk assessments were in place within individual care records to reduce risks from residents whose behaviour could have caused possible harm to others and staff had attended training on how to manage challenging behaviours. Staff supported residents in managing their monies and residents had their own bank accounts and cash cards and could have access to their monies at any time. Good systems were in place for the storage and recording of incoming and outgoing monies for each resident and a random check of a resident’s monies held by the home tallied with the records. Goddards The DS0000019741.V312416.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 16 Since the previous inspection visit an agreement had been reached between representatives from the local authority, a resident’s relative and the management of the home that the home would take on the role of financial appointee for one of the resident’s. The home had received written confirmation from the Local Authority’s Welfare Rights Department that they were adhering to the Department of Working Pensions guidance in relation to this matter. Goddards The DS0000019741.V312416.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 at least once during a 12 month period. JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for the following standard(s): 24 and 30 Quality in this outcome area was good. This judgement has been made using all available evidence including a visit to this service. Residents lived in a very homely and pleasant environment that was clean and well maintained. EVIDENCE: The home was warm, clean and bright on the day of the site visit. Accommodation was over two floors and could be accessed by stairs. There was only one bedroom on the ground floor so the home would not be suitable at the present time for people with a mobility problem if the ground floor bedroom was not available. However there was a portable ramp that would enable people visiting the home to have access to and from the building. The home had ample communal space with extremely spacious and wellmaintained gardens. The general standard of décor was of a high standard and there was an ongoing planned maintenance programme. Only the ground floor bedroom had en-suite facilities although residents had easy access to bathrooms, a shower and toilets on the first floor. Bedrooms were observed to be homely, comfortable and personalised. The home had a laundry room where the care staff were responsible for the washing of residents personal clothing and bed linen. Goddards The DS0000019741.V312416.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 18 The owner of the home carried out regular hot water temperature checks and dealt with any irregularities immediately and the records confirmed this. A random check of the hot water temperature in a bathroom area was found to be within safe limits. Some recent work had been undertaken on the gas boiler system and this had involved the fitting of a new flue liner. The manager commented that the work had been completed over a short period of time and so had not had a significant impact on the warmth of the home and the hot water systems had not been affected and residents and staff were able to confirm this. Goddards The DS0000019741.V312416.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 at least once during a 12 month period. JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for the following standard(s): 32, 34 and 35 Quality in this outcome area was good. This judgement has been made using available evidence including a visit to this service. Residents received a very good standard of care from a well-motivated and enthusiastic staff team, however one aspect of the recruitment procedures needed to be improved to ensure that residents were safeguarded from potential harm. EVIDENCE: Staffing levels were good to ensure that residents needs could be met. As well as care staff the home employed a cook, a cleaner, an administrator and a part-time secretary. Staff said that the staffing levels were “good” and staff could be observed to be providing support and care in an unhurried manner and residents said that they were always able to access a staff member if needing to. Sufficient staffing levels meant staff were able to spend time with residents on an individual basis and were able to carry out activities within the home. Both staff and residents felt that the care at the home was good and one staff member said the home was a “brilliant place” to work and it was clear that staff and residents got on well together and the atmosphere in the home was very welcoming and full of laughter. A survey received from a GP described the staff team as “excellent” and surveys from health professionals who visited the home said that they found staff to be “approachable and helpful”. Goddards The DS0000019741.V312416.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 20 Staff received a range of training to equip them in meeting the needs of the residents and this included training specific to the needs of the resident group such as promoting equality and diversity for people with a learning disability. Most of the staff had either completed or were undergoing the NVQ programme to enhance their skills and knowledge in meeting the residents needs. An induction programme was in place for all new staff and this was detailed and covered a number of aspects of working at the home. The staff files of two recently appointed members of staff were looked at. One file was that of a member of staff who had been appointed as an ancillary worker. Within the records there was no evidence that a Criminal Record Bureau (CRB) check had been carried out on the staff member. The manager commented that the check had not been carried out, as her understanding had been that CRB checks were not necessary for workers who were employed into positions where they were not providing personal cares to residents. This practice needed to be addressed to safeguard residents’ from possible harm. Goddards The DS0000019741.V312416.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 at least once during a 12 month period. JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for the following standard(s): 37, 39 and 42 Quality in this outcome area was excellent. This judgement has been made using available evidence including a visit to this service. The home was very well managed, residents were involved in decision-making about the home and overall proper attention was given to ensuring their health and safety. EVIDENCE: The registered manager was very experienced in running the home and was nearing completion of the Registered Manager’s Award to enhance her management skills further. It was evident through observation and the comments of residents, a relative, staff and health professionals that the manager was well respected. Staff felt well supported by the management of the home and residents described the manager as “very nice and approachable”. A survey returned by a health professional stated that the home was managed “professionally and efficiently” and everyone spoken to said that the manager was “easy to talk to”. Since 2004 the home has had the Investors People Award for the quality of care and services provided to the residents at the home. Goddards The DS0000019741.V312416.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 22 A survey questionnaire had been sent out to residents, carers, relatives and commissioning services who were providing funding for people to live at the home to seek their views about the home. The findings from the questionnaires had been analysed and were very positive about the care and services provided and actions were taken to address areas where further improvement was needed. Resident and staff meetings took place monthly and encouraged people to voice their views and staff supervision systems were in place so that management were aware of any staffing issues. Arrangements were in place for the promotion of a safe and secure environment for residents, visitors and staff. A number of satisfactory certificates and reports were seen relating to the premises. Since the previous inspection visit Portable Appliance Testing (PAT) equipment had been acquired and testing had been undertaken to ensure that the electrical appliances in the home were safe to use these were recorded. The gas boiler and central heating system had been serviced and further work had been carried out following findings from this work to make sure the boiler and heating systems were working properly and an updated gas safety record had been obtained. All staff had received health and safety training and accidents were clearly recorded within the home’s accident records to protect the interests of residents. However proper pre-employment checks needed to be carried out on all prospective members of staff to safeguard residents from harm. Goddards The DS0000019741.V312416.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 3 5 X INDIVIDUAL NEEDS AND CHOICES Standard No 6 7 8 9 10 Score CONCERNS AND COMPLAINTS Standard No Score 22 3 23 3 ENVIRONMENT Standard No Score 24 3 25 X 26 X 27 X 28 X 29 X 30 3 STAFFING Standard No Score 31 X 32 3 33 X 34 2 35 3 36 X CONDUCT AND MANAGEMENT OF THE HOME Standard No 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 Score 3 3 X 3 X LIFESTYLES Standard No Score 11 X 12 4 13 4 14 X 15 3 16 3 17 3 PERSONAL AND HEALTHCARE SUPPORT Standard No 18 19 20 21 Score 4 4 3 X 4 X 4 X X 3 X Goddards The DS0000019741.V312416.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 24 Are there any outstanding requirements from the last inspection? No STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS This section sets out the actions, which must be taken so that the registered person/s meets the Care Standards Act 2000, Care Homes Regulations 2001 and the National Minimum Standards. The Registered Provider(s) must comply with the given timescales. No. 1 Standard YA34 Regulation 19 Requirement Criminal Record Bureau checks must be carried out on all noncare staff before they are employed at the home. Timescale for action 10/11/06 RECOMMENDATIONS These recommendations relate to National Minimum Standards and are seen as good practice for the Registered Provider/s to consider carrying out. No. 1 Refer to Standard YA6 Good Practice Recommendations The registered person should look at ways of organising resident’s care records so that information within these is easier to access. Goddards The DS0000019741.V312416.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 25 Commission for Social Care Inspection York Area Office Unit 4 Triune Court Monks Cross York YO32 9GZ 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 Goddards The DS0000019741.V312416.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 26 - 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!