Inspection on 07/06/06 for Hamilton Court

This inspection was carried out on 7th June 2006.

CSCI has not published a star rating for this report, though using similar criteria we estimate that the report is Adequate. 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 there to be outstanding requirements from the previous inspection report. These are things the inspector asked to be changed, but found they had not done. The inspector also made 19 statutory requirements (actions the home must comply with) as a result of this inspection.

Other inspections for this house

Hamilton Court 02/05/07

Hamilton Court 16/11/05

Hamilton Court 19/05/05

Hamilton Court 23/03/05

Hamilton Court 16/12/04

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

CARE HOME ADULTS 18-65 Hamilton Court 2 Hinstock Road Handsworth Birmingham B20 2EU Lead Inspector Julie Preston Key Unannounced Inspection 7th June 2006 11:00 Hamilton Court DS0000054608.V294640.R01.S.doc Version 5.1 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 Hamilton Court DS0000054608.V294640.R01.S.doc Version 5.1 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. Hamilton Court DS0000054608.V294640.R01.S.doc Version 5.1 Page 3 SERVICE INFORMATION Name of service Hamilton Court Address 2 Hinstock Road Handsworth Birmingham B20 2EU 0121 5154955 0121 5154680 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) Tudor Views Ltd Mr Sukhwinder Singh Care Home 13 Category(ies) of Mental disorder, excluding learning disability or registration, with number dementia (13) of places Hamilton Court DS0000054608.V294640.R01.S.doc Version 5.1 Page 4 SERVICE INFORMATION Conditions of registration: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. That the home provides personal care only for thirteen people for reasons of mental disorder, excluding learning disability or dementia. (13MD) Service users must be aged under 65 years. That a minimum of two staff are on duty at all times, one of whom should be designated senior. That the manager completes the Registered Managers Award or equivalent by April 2005. That additional garden space is created for the service users to the side of the home which affords a degree of privacy for service users, within 4 months of registration. That the home may provide care and accommodation for one named service user in need of respite care for reasons of learning disability. 16th November 2005 Date of last inspection Brief Description of the Service: Tudor Views is a large detached house situated opposite a park in the Handsworth Wood area of Birmingham. The home provides care to people with mental health problems and currently has an all male service user group, employing a predominantly male staff team. Shopping, leisure and public transport facilities are within walking distance of the home. Bedrooms are available on all floors and there are two lounges on the ground floor, one of which is a designated smoking area. Hamilton Court DS0000054608.V294640.R01.S.doc Version 5.1 Page 5 SUMMARY This is an overview of what the inspector found during the inspection. This key fieldwork took place over two half days and included a tour of the premises, discussion with service users about their experiences of living in the home and observation of records that describe the care service users receive. Medication storage and records were looked at as well as some staff training and recruitment and selection records. Health and safety practice was observed and discussed with the staff on duty. This fieldwork identified that management of the home has improved creating better outcomes for service users. There have been no complaints about this home since the last inspection. What the service does well: What has improved since the last inspection? Details of service users care needs and the controls in place to reduce risks to their health and well-being are better organised and more clearly written. Staff have made effort to present information to service users in a format they can understand. Medicines management has improved for the benefit of the service user group. Staff recruitment and selection procedures are more robust and promote the protection of service users. Hamilton Court DS0000054608.V294640.R01.S.doc Version 5.1 Page 6 Quality assurance systems have been introduced to review the care provided in the home and service users views are sought as part of this process. Action has been taken to promote the health and safety of service users in the home. 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. Hamilton Court DS0000054608.V294640.R01.S.doc Version 5.1 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 Hamilton Court DS0000054608.V294640.R01.S.doc Version 5.1 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 The quality outcome in this area is good. This judgement has been made using available evidence including a visit to this service. The home implements good systems of admission to ensure that service users assessed needs can be met prior to them moving in. EVIDENCE: At this visit it was reported that a new service user had recently been admitted to the home. The inspector observed an assessment of the person’s needs to be in place, which had been completed by staff at the home and other mental health care professionals. The assessment described the person’s needs and identified known risks and the controls in place to manage them. The manager and deputy manager were able to describe the process of admission and confirmed that service users were offered trial visits to the home in order to decide whether their needs could be met there. The inspector had the opportunity to meet the most recently admitted service user. This person commented that he had received a warm welcome and was confident that he had made the right choice about where to live. Since this fieldwork, the CSCI have received a letter from the service user complimenting the staff team on their approach to his admission to the home. Hamilton Court DS0000054608.V294640.R01.S.doc Version 5.1 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, 9 The quality outcome in this area is adequate. This judgement has been made using available evidence including a visit to this service. Care plans and risk assessments are in the main well written and reflective of service users assessed needs. Service users have opportunities to make decisions about their lifestyles. EVIDENCE: Two care plans were sampled at this inspection. In both cases the plans were not signed or dated to enable the reader to determine that they were relevant to service users current needs. This was discussed with the manager during the visit, who explained that care plans were in the process of being developed. The manager confirmed his awareness of the need to date and sign service users records. In the main, care plans described service users assessed needs however some areas that had been highlighted as of concern did not have risk assessments in place to instruct staff how to manage identified risks. For example, the care plan of a service user with diabetes stated that he was at “high risk” of taking food that may affect his health. Hamilton Court DS0000054608.V294640.R01.S.doc Version 5.1 Page 10 The plan went on to say that the person must be “checked frequently”. There was no further information to describe the controls in place to manage this risk, the type of food that may cause harm or the action to be taken by staff in the event that food was consumed by the person. Staff that complete care plans and risk assessments must ensure that they are written with sufficient detail to enable the reader to understand service users needs. There has however, been an improvement to the care planning process since the last inspection for the benefit and well being of service users that live in the home. Service users made favourable comments about the opportunities they have for making decisions about their lives. One person said that he made choices about managing his money, going out to vote in local elections and cooking his own meals. Another said that he had been assisted to use the Internet to order goods, which was a new experience for him and one that he enjoyed. Service users have a range of communication needs, including first languages other than English. It was pleasing to note that staff were observed using British Sign Language (BSL) to communicate with a service user, which is an improvement from the last inspection when only one member of staff was able to use this language. The manager reported that the majority of service users manage their own money, with the exception of one person. This service user’s financial records were examined. The cash balance seen did not reflect the records of income and expenditure and immediate requirements were made that this be investigated and to ensure that service users are protected by robust systems where they are unable to manage their own money. Hamilton Court DS0000054608.V294640.R01.S.doc Version 5.1 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, 17 The quality outcome in this area is adequate. This judgement has been made using available evidence including a visit to this service. Service users are supported to take part in activities they enjoy and keep in touch with their friends and relatives. Service users enjoy their meals and opportunities are provided for individuals to prepare their own food as a means of developing independence. Staff training in food hygiene and the recording of food provided needs to improve for the benefit and well being of service users EVIDENCE: Service users spoke about the activities they take part in and described using community based resources such as shops, parks and libraries. One service user stated that he went out on a regular basis, but if he did not wish to there was no compulsion to do so. It was pleasing to note the development of activity planners for each service user, some of which had been completed using pictures to enable the Hamilton Court DS0000054608.V294640.R01.S.doc Version 5.1 Page 12 individual to choose activities based on personal preferences described in care plans. A number of photographs were displayed which showed service users involved in gardening, arts and crafts and cooking. Service users are supported to use resources that reflect their cultural needs such as attendance at BID (British Institute for the Deaf) clubs and places of worship. Examination of daily records and discussion with service users and staff evidenced that planned activities take place. The care plans sampled showed that information had been recorded about the contact arrangements for service users to see their families and friends. A service user commented that he could see his visitors in private and often used the telephone to make personal calls. Service users were observed to move around their home freely, although a keypad entry system on the kitchen door did restrict one person’s access to the room on two occasions. Staff reported that the keypad had been put in place to safeguard service users to whom the kitchen would be dangerous. The home should ensure that systems in place to ensure service users safety do not impact on the independence of other service users. Food supplies were examined and found to be varied and plentiful, with a range of fresh fruit and vegetables. Safe food storage practice had been followed and refrigerated products had been labelled with the date of opening to reduce the risks of service users consuming food past the “use by” date. Some packages of dried goods stored in kitchen cupboards had not been sealed, which is required to ensure safe storage for the well being of service users. The menus sampled included a range of culturally appropriate meals, with alternatives on offer each day. One service user stated that he enjoyed cooking his own food and could choose when he took his meals. Another service user said that the times of meals were flexible and that he could have snacks and drinks when he wanted to. Records of food consumed by service users have not been completed by staff and this is required to evidence that menus are nutritious, varied and reflective of service users needs and preferences. Staff training records sampled did not demonstrate that training in Basic Food Hygiene has been provided. Again, this is required to ensure that food is stored and prepared safely for the well being of service users. Hamilton Court DS0000054608.V294640.R01.S.doc Version 5.1 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, 20 The quality outcome in this area is good. This judgement has been made using available evidence including a visit to this service. Service users personal and health care needs are assessed and there are plans in place to meet their needs. Medicines management is generally good, although the implementation of staff training is required to ensure a more robust system for the well being of service users. EVIDENCE: Personal care plans were sampled and found to have improved since the last inspection. Information was seen to clearly describe service users needs and preferences and staff were able to describe the care provided which was consistent with the content of the plans sampled. It was noted that all service users were dressed in styles that reflected their gender, age and culture. One service user talked about receiving support to go out and buy his own clothing and hair care products. Hamilton Court DS0000054608.V294640.R01.S.doc Version 5.1 Page 14 The home employs predominantly male staff, which is in keeping with the service user group currently living there. From discussion with service users and staff and observation of daily records, it was apparent that times for going to bed and getting up were flexible. Health care records were tracked for two service users. Both showed that each person had visited their GP, dentist and optician on a regular basis. Care plans for the two service users were observed which identified their mental health care needs and the action to be taken by staff in the event of a possible relapse. Staff present during this visit were able to describe how to recognise symptoms that service users were not well, which was consistent with the information seen in the care plans sampled. One service user commented that he felt well cared for in the home and that staff were always available to talk through any issues he had with his health. Another service user said that his stay at the home had helped him “feel better than I have in years”. Medication was noted to be securely stored in a locked cabinet. The medication prescribed to two service users was tracked, which showed no anomalies. Written protocols were observed for the administration of PRN (as required) medicines. The staff on duty were able to describe the circumstances under which such medicines should be used which was in accordance with the protocols seen. Staff training records were examined, which indicated that accredited training in the safe handling of medicines had not been provided to all staff that administer medication. This is required to ensure a robust system of medicines management for the well being of service users. Hamilton Court DS0000054608.V294640.R01.S.doc Version 5.1 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, 23 The quality outcome in this area is adequate. This judgement has been made using available evidence including a visit to this service. There are systems in place for the protection of service users and for listening to their views, however some service users have not been made aware of the home’s procedure for making complaints. EVIDENCE: There have been no complaints about the home since the last inspection. This was evidenced from information received prior to this fieldwork and from observation of the home’s log of complaints. Two service users stated that they were aware of their right to make a complaint although had not seen a copy of the written procedure. The inspector examined the written complaints procedure, which is in need of minor amendment to reflect the home’s name change. The home must make sure that service users receive a copy of the complaints procedure in a format they can understand. The home has an adult protection policy, which is in keeping with guidance issued by Birmingham Social Care and Health department. From observation of the staff training matrix it was evident that adult protection training had not been provided to some staff. This is outstanding from the last inspection and is now urgently required. Hamilton Court DS0000054608.V294640.R01.S.doc Version 5.1 Page 16 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, 26, 30 The quality outcome in this area is adequate. This judgement has been made using available evidence including a visit to this service. In the main, the home is well presented, comfortable and clean, which provides a satisfactory environment for service users to live in. EVIDENCE: A tour of the premises was undertaken. Some improvements were noted such as the installation of a new heating system due to be completed within two weeks of this visit and the re carpeting of four bedrooms. The home was noted to be clean with no unpleasant odour. Since the last inspection a risk assessment had been completed with regard to carrying soiled linen through the dining room. Staff were observed to follow this protocol in order to reduce the risk of the spread of infection. It was therefore unfortunate that liquid soap and paper towels were not available in the laundry room for staff to wash their hands after handling linen. This must be provided. Hamilton Court DS0000054608.V294640.R01.S.doc Version 5.1 Page 17 A number of mops were seen to be stored outside the kitchen door, all of which were dirty and therefore in need of replacement. Two bedrooms were looked at. One was well furnished and personalised to the service users taste. The service user said he was happy with his room and liked the responsibility of having his own key. The second bedroom did not have curtains at the windows and the front panel was missing from the wash hand basin. This bedroom’s walls contained numerous holes, which did not enhance its presentation. The home must take action to address these matters for the comfort of the service user. The communal dining room and lounges were well furnished and service users commented that the rooms were comfortable. One notable exception was the smoke room carpet, which contained a number of holes caused by dropped cigarettes. This must be replaced for the comfort and safety of service users. The rear garden of the home is small, however staff had attempted to make good use of the space by use of furniture and plant pots. The garden was overgrown and in need of clearance. This had been completed by the second date of this visit. Some broken furniture was observed in the corner of the garden, which was had been disposed of by the second date of this visit. Hamilton Court DS0000054608.V294640.R01.S.doc Version 5.1 Page 18 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, 35 The quality outcome in this area is adequate. This judgement has been made using available evidence including a visit to this service. Staff demonstrate knowledge of service users needs, however the organisation of training records does not show that staff have received sufficient training to fully support service users living in the home. Improvements have been made to the home’s recruitment and selection procedures for the protection of service users. EVIDENCE: Staff on duty during this fieldwork demonstrated knowledge of service users needs and were friendly and respectful in their contact with individuals. Three service users made positive comments about the staff team saying, “there is always someone here to listen and help me”, “the staff are really good, if you want anything it happens”. This service user went on to say that whenever he wanted to go out, staff were available to go with him. Staff records were sampled which did not evidence that regular mandatory and service user specific training had been provided. The inspector was shown a matrix that identified significant gaps in training for the staff team as a whole however a second matrix was received at the CSCI Hamilton Court DS0000054608.V294640.R01.S.doc Version 5.1 Page 19 offices after this fieldwork, which stated that training had been provided. This matrix did not detail the dates of training or training provider and did not include any training undertaken by the manager. Staff files sampled did not contain certificates as evidence that training had been completed, so it was not possible to establish the accuracy of the second training matrix. It is required that staff receive training to enable them to meet service users assessed needs and work safely and effectively with them. Staff recruitment and supervision records were sampled. The two files seen contained copies of application forms, proof of identification, two written references and proof that a CRB (Criminal Records Bureau) check had been undertaken. The manager demonstrated awareness of the need to complete a robust process of recruitment and selection for the protection of service users living in the home. Hamilton Court DS0000054608.V294640.R01.S.doc Version 5.1 Page 20 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, 42 The quality outcome in this area is good. This judgement has been made using available evidence including a visit to this service. Management of the home has improved creating better outcomes for service users. The home takes action to promote the health and safety of service users and has developed systems of quality assurance to review the standard of care delivered. EVIDENCE: The home’s manager has not submitted an application for registration to the CSCI. This is outstanding from the inspection of November 2005. The manager advised that he is currently undertaking his NVQ Level IV in care, which was confirmed by his college tutor in a letter sent to the CSCI. Hamilton Court DS0000054608.V294640.R01.S.doc Version 5.1 Page 21 This fieldwork has identified a number of improvements to the service delivered from Hamilton Court creating better outcomes for service users. The manager reiterated his commitment to driving further improvements for the benefit of the service user group. The home has made progress to develop and implement systems of quality assurance since the last inspection. It was pleasing to note that visits by a representative of the registered provider had taken place, which reported on the quality of care provided within the home. Sampling of these reports and discussion with staff and service users identified that improvements had been made as a result of the visits, such as better cleaning schedules. Service users commented that they had commenced meetings to discuss issues that were important to them such as planning trips out and reviewing menus. One service user stated that a trip to a local theme park had been arranged as a result of one of the meetings, which he felt was positive. The home’s fire safety records were observed which demonstrated regular testing and servicing of fire equipment. Up to date certificates of service were available for gas and electrical appliances. The home’s fire risk assessment dated 2004 was noted to be in need of review, to ensure that adequate safety controls are in place for the protection of service users. Since the last inspection records of the temperature of hot water had been completed which showed a safe range of delivery from outlets in the home. It was pleasing to note that risk assessments had been developed with regard to the premises, which clearly identified the controls in place to minimise risks to service users health and safety, such as the provision of window restrictors and the monitoring of hot water. Hamilton Court DS0000054608.V294640.R01.S.doc Version 5.1 Page 22 SCORING OF OUTCOMES This page summarises the assessment of the extent to which the National Minimum Standards for Care Homes for Adults 18-65 have been met and uses the following scale. The scale ranges from: 4 Standard Exceeded 2 Standard Almost Met (Commendable) (Minor Shortfalls) 3 Standard Met 1 Standard Not Met (No Shortfalls) (Major Shortfalls) “X” in the standard met box denotes standard not assessed on this occasion “N/A” in the standard met box denotes standard not applicable CHOICE OF HOME Standard No Score 1 X 2 3 3 X 4 X 5 X INDIVIDUAL NEEDS AND CHOICES Standard No 6 7 8 9 10 Score CONCERNS AND COMPLAINTS Standard No Score 22 2 23 2 ENVIRONMENT Standard No Score 24 2 25 X 26 2 27 X 28 X 29 X 30 2 STAFFING Standard No Score 31 X 32 3 33 X 34 3 35 2 36 X CONDUCT AND MANAGEMENT OF THE HOME Standard No 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 Score 2 2 X 2 X LIFESTYLES Standard No Score 11 X 12 3 13 3 14 X 15 3 16 2 17 2 PERSONAL AND HEALTHCARE SUPPORT Standard No 18 19 20 21 Score 3 3 2 X 2 X 3 X X 2 X Hamilton Court DS0000054608.V294640.R01.S.doc Version 5.1 Page 23 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 YA9YA6 Regulation 15(1-2) 13(4)(a-c) Requirement A care plan must be developed and implemented for service users with diabetes, which must include the controls in place to manage identified risks. Immediate requirement Care plans and risk assessments must be signed and dated to ensure that they are relevant to service users current needs and to assist the process of review. Records of service users income and expenditure must reflect the balance of cash held within the home. Anomalies must be investigated and the outcome recorded. Immediate requirement Packages of dried foods must be sealed after opening to ensure safer food storage. DS0000054608.V294640.R01.S.doc Timescale for action 16/06/06 2 YA9YA6 15(1-2) 31/08/06 3 YA7 17(2) Sch 4(9) 08/06/06 4 YA17 13(4)(c) 31/08/06 Hamilton Court Version 5.1 Page 24 5 YA17 17(2) Sch 4(13) 18(1)(a) 6 YA17 7 YA20 13(2) 18(1)(c)(i) Records of food 31/08/06 consumed by service users must be maintained. Staff must receive 22/09/06 training in Basic Food Hygiene where this forms part of their role. The home must ensure 22/09/06 that all staff have accredited training in the safe handling of medicines, where this is part of their role. Unmet from last inspection. Service users must be 31/08/06 provided with a copy of the home’s complaints procedure in a format they can understand. The procedure must be amended to reflect the home’s change of name. Staff must receive 22/09/06 training in adult protection. Unmet from last inspection. The carpet in the smoke room must be replaced. Holes in the wall of the bedroom on the first floor must be repaired and the panel of the wash hand basin replaced. Curtains must be provided in this room. Liquid soap and paper towels must be provided in the laundry room to reduce the risk of the spread of infection. Dirty mop heads must be replaced to reduce the risk of the spread of DS0000054608.V294640.R01.S.doc 8 YA22 22(1-8) 9 YA35YA23 18(1)(a)(c)(i) 13(6) 10 11 YA24 YA26 23(2)(b) 23(2)(b) 16(2)(c) 29/09/06 29/09/06 12 YA30 13(3) 31/08/06 13 YA30 13(3) 31/08/06 Hamilton Court Version 5.1 Page 25 infection. 14 YA35 18(1)(a, c) A review of staff training 29/09/06 needs must be conducted to ensure that mandatory and service user specific training is delivered. Records of such training must be maintained. The registered provider must ensure that an 29/09/06 application is made to the CSCI for the registration of the new manager. Unmet from last inspection. The fire risk assessment dated 2004 must be reviewed to ensure it remains relevant to service users needs. 15 YA37 8(1-2) 16 YA42 23(4)(c)(v) 31/08/06 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 YA16 Good Practice Recommendations The home should consider how service users access to the kitchen is encouraged to maintain their independent living skills whilst promoting vulnerable service users safety. Hamilton Court DS0000054608.V294640.R01.S.doc Version 5.1 Page 26 Commission for Social Care Inspection Birmingham Office 1st Floor Ladywood House 45-46 Stephenson Street Birmingham B2 4UZ 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 Hamilton Court DS0000054608.V294640.R01.S.doc Version 5.1 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!