Inspection on 05/03/07 for Harry Chamberlain Court Residential Home (44)

This inspection was carried out on 5th March 2007.

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

Other inspections for this house

Harry Chamberlain Court... 10/11/08

Harry Chamberlain Court... 28/02/06

Harry Chamberlain Court... 17/10/05

Harry Chamberlain Court... 16/03/05

Harry Chamberlain Court... 02/08/04

Harry Chamberlain Court... 11/02/04

Similar services:

Upaya Ananda

Newton Court (1-2)

Kings Lane (32)

Pemdale

Coopers Mill Ltd

Bramley Avenue (73)

Paradise Lodge

Grangewood

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

CARE HOME ADULTS 18-65 Harry Chamberlain Court Residential Home (44) 44 Harry Chamberlain Court Hollingsworth Road Lowestoft Suffolk NR32 4UG Lead Inspector Julie Small Key Unannounced Inspection 5th March 2007 10:55 Harry Chamberlain Court Residential Home (44) DS0000024405.V332373.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 Harry Chamberlain Court Residential Home (44) DS0000024405.V332373.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. Harry Chamberlain Court Residential Home (44) DS0000024405.V332373.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 3 SERVICE INFORMATION Name of service Harry Chamberlain Court Residential Home (44) Address 44 Harry Chamberlain Court Hollingsworth Road Lowestoft Suffolk NR32 4UG 01502 564792 F/P 01502 564792 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) www.mencap.org.uk Royal Mencap Society Mrs Christine Brown Care Home 6 Category(ies) of Learning disability (6), Learning disability over registration, with number 65 years of age (1), Physical disability (6) of places Harry Chamberlain Court Residential Home (44) DS0000024405.V332373.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 4 SERVICE INFORMATION Conditions of registration: 1. 2. Service Users with Physical Disability The Home may only accommodate people with a Physical Disability if they also have a Learning Disability. One named person in the category of Learning Disability over the age of 65 One named person in the category of Learning Disability over the age of 65 made known to the Commission for Social Care Inspection on 20 April 2005 (as named in the application) 28th February 2006 Date of last inspection Brief Description of the Service: 44 Harry Chamberlain Court is a residential care home providing care and accommodation for up to six adults with a learning disability, who may also have some level of physical disability. The home is owned by the Royal Mencap Society and is situated in a mixed housing complex on the outskirts of Lowestoft. This resource was first registered in 1989. All accommodation is sited at ground floor level and there are two small garden areas accessible to service users and a large car park to the rear of the building. At the time of the inspection, service users written statement of terms and conditions were viewed and it was noted that fees ranged from £62.35 to £94.45. Harry Chamberlain Court Residential Home (44) DS0000024405.V332373.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 5 SUMMARY This is an overview of what the inspector found during the inspection. The unannounced inspection took place on Monday 5th March 2007 from 10.55am to 15.45pm. The inspection was a key inspection which focused on the core standards relating to adults and was undertaken by regulatory inspector Julie Small. This report has been written using accumulated evidence gained prior to and during the inspection. The manager was not present during the inspection, a support worker who was on duty at the time of the inspection facilitated the inspection process. A staff member said that service users were referred to as residents at the home, this term will be used throughout the inspection report. During the inspection two residents and three staff members were spoken with. A tour of the building and observation of work practice was undertaken. A range of records were viewed which included three residents records, fire safety, accident and incident reports, training records and medication records. Further records viewed are identified in the main body of the report. Residents and staff met during the inspection welcomed the inspector into the home and staff provided information requested promptly and in an open manner. What the service does well: What has improved since the last inspection? A previous requirement was that there must be a ‘fit for purpose’ medication storage unit which complies with the Guidance for Misuse of Drugs (Safe Custody) Regulations 1973. This had been actioned since the last inspection, there was a secure metal cabinet which was attached to the wall, the medication storage cabinet held a further secure storage facility for controlled drugs. Harry Chamberlain Court Residential Home (44) DS0000024405.V332373.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 6 What they could do better: Please contact the provider for advice of actions taken in response to this inspection. The report of this inspection is available from enquiries@csci.gsi.gov.uk or by contacting your local CSCI office. The summary of this inspection report can be made available in other formats on request. Harry Chamberlain Court Residential Home (44) DS0000024405.V332373.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 Harry Chamberlain Court Residential Home (44) DS0000024405.V332373.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 8 Choice of Home The intended outcomes for Standards 1 – 5 are: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Prospective service users have the information they need to make an informed choice about where to live. Prospective users’ individual aspirations and needs are assessed. Prospective service users know that the home that they will choose will meet their needs and aspirations. Prospective service users have an opportunity to visit and to “test drive” the home. Each service user has an individual written contract or statement of terms and conditions with the home. The Commission consider Standard 2 the key standard to be inspected. JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for the following standard(s): 2, 5 Quality in this outcome area is good. This judgement has been made using available evidence including a visit to this service. Prospective residents can expect that their individual aspirations and needs are assessed and that each resident has a written statement of terms and conditions with the home. EVIDENCE: Three residents records were viewed and held needs assessments undertaken by the placing authority. The records also contained updated needs assessments and reviews, which had been completed by the placing authority, with input from the home, the resident and others involved in their care. Each resident’s records viewed held a written statement of terms and conditions of the home, which was signed by the resident and the manager of the home. The statement of terms and conditions included details of the resident’s fees, what they can expect from the home, services that would be provided to them and details of how they may make a complaint. Harry Chamberlain Court Residential Home (44) DS0000024405.V332373.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 9 Individual Needs and Choices The intended outcomes for Standards 6 – 10 are: 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. Service users know their assessed and changing needs and personal goals are reflected in their individual Plan. Service users make decisions about their lives with assistance as needed. Service users are consulted on, and participate in, all aspects of life in the home. Service users are supported to take risks as part of an independent lifestyle. Service users know that information about them is handled appropriately, and that their confidences are kept. The Commission considers Standards 6, 7 and 9 the key standards to be inspected. JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for the following standard(s): 6, 7, 9 Quality in this outcome area is good. This judgement has been made using available evidence including a visit to this service. Residents can expect that the majority of their assessed needs and personal goals are reflected in their individual plan. They cannot be assured that they are regularly updated to show their changing needs. Residents can expect that they make decisions about their lives and that they are supported to take risks as part of an independent lifestyle. EVIDENCE: Three residents care plans were viewed and included support they required and preferred in their daily living. Each care plan provided regular dates of review. However, there was evidence in one resident’s records, such as daily records and correspondence that indicated that one resident had changes in their needs and support with regards to behaviour management, such as a ‘smiley face’ chart for positive behaviours, this had not been clearly recorded in the care plan. Harry Chamberlain Court Residential Home (44) DS0000024405.V332373.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 10 Two residents had received support from psychological services and there was evidence, such as correspondence and meeting minutes, that the home had worked with them and the day services in ensuring that the residents received a consistent service, this was not clearly identified in their care plans. Staff spoken with had a good understanding of the needs of residents. There was documentation of care plan review meetings which included the resident, their key worker from the home, family and others involved in their care. There was a notice posted on the notice board in the dining area, which provided information that service user reviews were taking place in the near future and would be conducted by the Local Authority. A staff member spoken with said that residents and their key workers met regularly and discussed their views on the care that they received and their preferences. The records viewed included documentation which evidenced that this had taken place. Some included satisfaction questionnaires, completed on a monthly basis with their key worker, all of which were positive. Daily records and residents care plans viewed evidenced that residents made decisions about their daily lives. Residents spoken with confirmed that they chose what they wanted to do and that staff listened to them. Resident’s records clearly indicated what were the arrangements for their finances, what support they needed and if they were self managing. Each service user’s records viewed included risk assessments which identified possible risks they may face in their daily living and actions staff and residents should take to prevent or minimise the risks. Risk assessments included swimming, making hot drinks, cooking, bathing, keeping their bank card, ironing and one resident’s records included a risk assessment regarding them keeping indigestion tablets in their bedroom. Harry Chamberlain Court Residential Home (44) DS0000024405.V332373.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 11 Lifestyle The intended outcomes for Standards 11 - 17 are: 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. Service users have opportunities for personal development. Service users are able to take part in age, peer and culturally appropriate activities. Service users are part of the local community. Service users engage in appropriate leisure activities. Service users have appropriate personal, family and sexual relationships. Service users’ rights are respected and responsibilities recognised in their daily lives. Service users are offered a healthy diet and enjoy their meals and mealtimes. The Commission considers Standards 12, 13, 15, 16 and 17 the key standards to be inspected. JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for the following standard(s): 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17 Quality in this outcome area is good. This judgement has been made using available evidence including a visit to this service. Residents can expect that they take part in appropriate activities in the home and in the community, that they are encouraged to maintain appropriate relationships, that their rights are respected and that they are provided with a healthy diet. EVIDENCE: Residents records viewed evidenced that they attend regular day services which meet with their interests. A resident said that they attended a centre which they liked for four days each week. Another resident explained that they went to work and what their job entailed, they said that they travelled to and from work on public transport. Harry Chamberlain Court Residential Home (44) DS0000024405.V332373.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 12 Resident’s records included correspondence regarding their benefits and arrangements for paying their fees. A staff member said that one resident used to go to the post office to collect benefits and pay their rent. However, due to the safety of the area they lived in, they were escorted by staff to ensure their safety. Residents spoken with said that they enjoyed going to the cinema, eating out, bowling, going to their weekly club, discos and shopping. Residents records viewed confirmed that they attended a good range of activities within the community. There were references to the use of buses, the centre’s transport and taxi’s to travel to and from their day care provision. There had been issues with neighbours damaging the property, a staff member said that this was improving due to the change of tenants in the surrounding properties. They showed a file of complaints which the home had made to the local council about the issues they had faced. During a tour of the building it was noted that there was a good range of entertainment in the home. There was a television in the lounge and dining area, a music centre, DVD player, digital television box, music CD’s, films and board games. There was a jigsaw which staff said that residents were working on. There were large balls of wool, and a staff member said that a resident liked to make pom-poms. A resident showed the inspector a large pom-pom, which their peer had made and given to them as a gift. Two residents showed the inspector their bedrooms, they had televisions and their personal belongings which reflected their interests such as jigsaws, books and music. Residents spoken with said that they had enjoyed a holiday each year. A staff member showed the inspector paintings which were displayed on the lounge wall and each reflected interests which residents had. Residents records viewed evidenced that they maintained regular contact through visits, telephone calls and writing letters with their family members. Residents spoken with confirmed this. One resident said that they got their letters unopened, but asked staff for help with opening them. There were records of family contact that residents had undertaken, including visits to family members and visits to the home. There was evidence that residents had invited friends and family to a meal at the home. A staff member and a resident explained how they had written to a family member. They had received a response, which had identified some of the resident’s history and had included some photographs, which they were using in their life story book. Harry Chamberlain Court Residential Home (44) DS0000024405.V332373.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 13 One resident said that they had a befriender, however, they had not turned up for arranged meetings. A staff member explained that the befriender was from a local befriending service and that the manager had raised concerns on the resident’s behalf with the proprietor about their non-attendance, this was confirmed by correspondence in records viewed. Residents said that they were provided with a key to their bedroom and to the homes front and back door. They said that staff did not go into their room without permission. During the inspection interaction between staff and residents was positive and respectful. Staff spoken with said that residents took responsibility for keeping their bedrooms clean and shared responsibilities for keeping the communal areas of the home clean and tidy, they said that staff cleaned the toilets and bathrooms. A resident and a staff member explained that each resident had a kitchen day, where they would help to prepare the evening meal, lay the table and clear away the meal items. They said that residents chose the weekly menus together. Menus were viewed and it was noted that residents were provided with a balanced and healthy diet. Resident’s records identified their likes and dislikes with regards to food. One residents care plan identified what foods they should avoid for health reasons. Residents spoken with said that if they did not want to eat what they had agreed to on the menu, they could choose what they preferred to eat. They said that they had sufficient food. There were large bowls of fresh fruit in the dining area, which residents could help themselves to if they wished. The fridge held a good range of fresh vegetables. Food which had been opened was labelled with the opening and use by dates. Residents were observed helping themselves to drinks and offered staff and inspector drinks. Harry Chamberlain Court Residential Home (44) DS0000024405.V332373.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 14 Personal and Healthcare Support The intended outcomes for Standards 18 - 21 are: 18. 19. 20. 21. Service users receive personal support in the way they prefer and require. Service users’ physical and emotional health needs are met. Service users retain, administer and control their own medication where appropriate, and are protected by the home’s policies and procedures for dealing with medicines. The ageing, illness and death of a service user are handled with respect and as the individual would wish. The Commission considers Standards 18, 19, and 20 the key standards to be inspected. JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for the following standard(s): 18, 19, 20 Quality in this outcome area is good. This judgement has been made using available evidence including a visit to this service. Service users can expect that they receive personal support in the way they prefer, that their health needs are met and that they are protected by the medication procedures. They cannot be assured that there is be clear directions regarding PRN medication. EVIDENCE: Residents records viewed clearly identified their likes, dislikes and their preferred routines. There was evidence that residents and their key workers met on a monthly basis to discuss issues of their care and there were records of regular reviews including the home, resident, their family and others involved in their care. Care plans indicated what support residents needed and preferred relating to their personal care. Residents spoken with said that their choices were listened to and that they chose their own clothing and toiletries. Harry Chamberlain Court Residential Home (44) DS0000024405.V332373.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 15 There were records which showed where residents had attended healthcare appointments which included visits to and from their doctors, dentists, opticians and chiropodists. Details of support required when attending appointments was included in the care plan. Medication was stored in a secure metal cabinet which was attached to the wall, there was further secure storage for controlled drugs. A staff member reported that there were no prescribed controlled drugs at the home. The home used a MDS (monitored dosage system) and the majority of medication was provided by the pharmacy in blister packs. Inside the door of the storage cabinet was guidance from the pharmacy regarding the types of homely medications which were safe for residents to use if they wished to. A staff member explained the routines for ordering and disposing of medication and records were viewed. There was a medication profile in each resident’s record viewed and included a photograph of the resident, what medication each resident was prescribed and the possible side effects. The MAR (medication administration record) charts were viewed and it was noted that they were completed appropriately. One resident was prescribed PRN medication and there were risk assessments and guidance in the individual’s records of when this should be administered. The guidance explained when PRN should be offered to the resident and there was a note that a health professional had advised it be offered to the resident ‘sooner rather than later’. However, it was noted that the guidance did not provide a clear explanation of at which point medication should be offered for which types of behaviours displayed. There was a record of staff training which was viewed and evidenced that staff had been provided with medication training and training on the MDS system from the pharmacist. Staff meeting minutes viewed showed that staff had been provided with guidance on the non-removal of MAR charts from the home and actions staff must take if there were any medication administration errors. Harry Chamberlain Court Residential Home (44) DS0000024405.V332373.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 16 Concerns, Complaints and Protection The intended outcomes for Standards 22 – 23 are: 22. 23. Service users feel their views are listened to and acted on. Service users are protected from abuse, neglect and self-harm. The Commission considers Standards 22, and 23 the key standards to be inspected. JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for the following standard(s): 22, 23 Quality in this outcome area is good. This judgement has been made using available evidence including a visit to this service. Residents can expect that their views are listened to and acted on and that they are protected from abuse. However, they cannot be assured that staff are provided with up to date POVA training. EVIDENCE: The homes complaints procedure was viewed and was included in the written statement of terms and conditions. There were records which identified that residents had been provided with the procedure when they had moved into the home. There was a copy of the complaints procedure displayed on a notice board in the dining area of the home. Residents spoken with said that they were aware of what they could do if they were unhappy about something in the home. Staff spoken with had a good understanding of how they should support residents if they had a concern about the service they received. There had been no complaints made about the home since the last inspection. Complaints records were viewed which had been raised by the home to the local council regarding issues the home had faced with neighbours in the past. There was correspondence evidencing that the manager had made contact regarding issues raised by a service user about their befriender not attending arranged meetings. The service user was spoken with and confirmed that they Harry Chamberlain Court Residential Home (44) DS0000024405.V332373.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 17 were concerned about the arrangements with the befriender and that the manager had assisted them. Staff spoken with had a good understanding of actions to take if they had concerns about the safety of a resident and how they should report such concerns. One staff said that they had received POVA training with their LDAF (learning disability award framework) induction, one staff member said that they had POVA training planned for the following week and another staff member said that they had not received POVA training but had been provided with the ‘No Secrets’ information booklet which they had read. Training records viewed evidenced that some staff had received POVA related training in 1999, 2000 and 2001. A staff member said that they were aware that the manager had planned POVA training for the staff team in the near future and two were attending the following week. They were unaware of further training dates. The home had a local authority procedure and guidance for the protection of vulnerable adults, which was available for staff in the office of the home. The Mencap operational procedures manual and local procedures were viewed and included staff guidance for POVA related issues, including the management of challenging behaviour. Staff spoken with said that the home did not restrain residents and explained that they used diversion techniques. Resident’s records identified arrangements for each resident’s finances, which included if they managed their own finances and what were the arrangements for safe storage of finances. A staff member explained how they had supported a service user when they used the local post office to collect their finances to ensure their safety in the community. There were records of a POVA referral made by the home following a resident having flour thrown at him in the community. The home had notified the appropriate bodies which included CSCI and the police. There were records of how the home had supported a service user following a broken wrist at their day centre, investigations were undertaken through the day centre. Harry Chamberlain Court Residential Home (44) DS0000024405.V332373.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 18 Environment The intended outcomes for Standards 24 – 30 are: 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. Service users live in a homely, comfortable and safe environment. Service users’ bedrooms suit their needs and lifestyles. Service users’ bedrooms promote their independence. Service users’ toilets and bathrooms provide sufficient privacy and meet their individual needs. Shared spaces complement and supplement service users’ individual rooms. Service users have the specialist equipment they require to maximise their independence. The home is clean and hygienic. The Commission considers Standards 24, and 30 the key standards to be inspected. JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for the following standard(s): 24, 26, 30 Quality in this outcome area is good. This judgement has been made using available evidence including a visit to this service. Residents can expect to live in a homely, comfortable and safe environment which is clean and hygienic. However, they cannot be assured that hand-drying facilities which prevent the spread of cross infection are provided. EVIDENCE: The home was clean, comfortable and homely. A tour of the building was undertaken and it was noted that it was attractively furnished and well maintained. The home reflected resident’s interests and individuality. A staff member showed the inspector paintings in the lounge, each of which reflected a residents interests, such as trains. There were fresh flowers and plants in the communal areas of the home. Two residents showed the inspector their bedrooms and confirmed that they had chosen the décor and the furnishings. They contained personal memorabilia and items of interest which reflected their individuality, such as Harry Chamberlain Court Residential Home (44) DS0000024405.V332373.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 19 music, photographs, paintings and posters. The bedrooms were clean, well maintained and attractively furnished. There was a CCTV camera, which overlooked the front door of the home, a staff member reported that this was to assist with the security of the home. Staff and residents spoken with reported that there were local amenities available in the area which included shops and public transport to the town centre. There were no offensive odours in the home. The laundry was viewed included a washing machine, dryer and a sink. There was a stock of coloured rubber gloves, cleaning buckets and mops, with direction of what colours should be used for cleaning jobs in the home. Hand washing facilities in the laundry and bathrooms provided hand wash gel. Hand drying facilities included a hand towel in each bathroom. A staff member said that they were changed daily. Residents used their personal bath towels for bathing. Harry Chamberlain Court Residential Home (44) DS0000024405.V332373.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 20 Staffing The intended outcomes for Standards 31 – 36 are: 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. Service users benefit from clarity of staff roles and responsibilities. Service users are supported by competent and qualified staff. Service users are supported by an effective staff team. Service users are supported and protected by the home’s recruitment policy and practices. Service users’ individual and joint needs are met by appropriately trained staff. Service users benefit from well supported and supervised staff. The Commission considers Standards 32, 34 and 35 the key standards to be inspected. JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for the following standard(s): 32, 34, 35 Quality in this outcome area is adequate. This judgement has been made using available evidence including a visit to this service. Due to the absence of the manager during the inspection recruitment records could not be inspected. Residents can expect that they are supported by a competent staff team who are provided with a training programme which supports staff in meeting residents needs, they cannot be assured that staff have received updated POVA training. EVIDENCE: A staff member spoken with confirmed that they had achieved their NVQ (National Vocational Qualification) level 2. They said that two staff had achieved their award and two were working on their award, there were seven staff working at the home. Training records viewed confirmed this and when the two staff members achieved their award the home would have reached the target of 50 staff to have achieved a minimum of NVQ level 2. Staff spoken with had a good knowledge of the residents they supported and their needs. Staff explained that positive aspects of working at the home were that residents were treated as individuals and their individual needs were met. Harry Chamberlain Court Residential Home (44) DS0000024405.V332373.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 21 They explained the person centre work they were completing with the residents. They said that there was a good staff team who worked together to ensure that the residents were supported appropriately. The manager was not present during the inspection, therefore access to staff recruitment records was not available. The previous inspection identified that all recruitment files viewed did not include two written references which were available for inspection. It was noted that all further required documentation was present. This requirement is repeated because it could not be checked if the requirement had been addressed. Training records viewed evidenced that newly appointed staff attended the LDAF induction training programme. A staff member was spoken with who had recently been employed at the home and they confirmed that they were working on their LDAF induction workbook. They said that they had received training which included POVA, first aid and communication. They said that they were satisfied with the amount of training provided and that it had provided information they required to perform their work role. They said that the manager of the home supported their learning needs and preferences. Two other staff spoken with confirmed that they had received training on issues such as medication, autism, communication, first aid, fire training, epilepsy and challenging behaviour. They reported that they felt that the training they were provided with was sufficient to meet their needs and that there was a good training programme available. A staff member reported that they were attending a POVA training course following the inspection and that they had received an abuse training course some years ago. Training certificates were not available for inspection, however there was a record of each staff member and the dates of attended training. The records evidenced that staff had been provided with the above training and further training which included manual handling, food hygiene, person centred planning, continence, report writing, ‘value me’, first aid for seizures and risk assessments. POVA related training had been provided to staff, but some years prior to the inspection such as 1999, 2000 and 2001. Staff spoken with confirmed that they provided with regular supervisions and team meetings, where they discussed training needs, Mencap developments and the work they undertake with residents at the home. Harry Chamberlain Court Residential Home (44) DS0000024405.V332373.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 22 Conduct and Management of the Home The intended outcomes for Standards 37 – 43 are: 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. Service users benefit from a well run home. Service users benefit from the ethos, leadership and management approach of the home. Service users are confident their views underpin all self-monitoring, review and development by the home. Service users’ rights and best interests are safeguarded by the home’s policies and procedures. Service users’ rights and best interests are safeguarded by the home’s record keeping policies and procedures. The health, safety and welfare of service users are promoted and protected. Service users benefit from competent and accountable management of the service. The Commission considers Standards 37, 39, and 42 the key standards to be inspected. JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for the following standard(s): 37, 39, 42 Quality in this outcome area is good. This judgement has been made using available evidence including a visit to this service. Residents can expect that they benefit from a well run home, that their views underpin self monitoring, review and development of the home and that their health and safety is promoted. EVIDENCE: A staff member spoken with confirmed that the manager had achieved their NVQ level 4 in management and care. This could not be confirmed with the manager at the time of the inspection, however the managers registration application as registered manager was successful with CSCI. Standard 37 was met during the last inspection. Harry Chamberlain Court Residential Home (44) DS0000024405.V332373.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 23 Staff spoken with said that residents were provided with regular key worker meetings, which provided them with the opportunity to comment on the service they received from the home and this would inform their care provision. There were questionnaires viewed in resident’s records which identified their satisfaction with the care they received. There was information displayed on a notice board in the dining area which explained that social care professionals were visiting the home with an aim to complete service user reviews. The Mencap operational procedures manual was viewed and identified methods of quality assurance which included monthly performance reports, incident and accident reports, satisfaction surveys, risk assessments and complaints monitoring. There was a file in the entrance of the home which contained previous CSCI inspection reports. The home had a fire risk assessment and fire safety records viewed evidenced that fire safety checks were regularly undertaken and that fire equipment was regularly serviced. A staff member said that there were weekly fire drills, which were activated from the residential complex where the home was situated and that it was good practice because residents and staff were aware of the evacuation procedures. The fire procedure was displayed on a notice board in the dining room. Records were viewed which evidenced that fridge, freezer and water temperatures were regularly undertaken and portable appliance checks were regularly undertaken. There was documentation, such as service certificates and reports, which evidenced gas safety check, Mencap safety inspection report and services on the Parker bath in one bathroom. There was a health and safety procedure manual which staff had signed and dated to say that they had read and understood. Information such as COSHH (control of substances hazardous to health), accident and incident reporting, first aid, infectious disease, infection control and using IT (information technology) equipment was included in the manual. The accident book and incident records were viewed. The home had a ‘safer food, better business’ manual which had not been used. The homes risk assessments were viewed and included hepatitis B, water leaks, floods, first aid, food storage, vehicle breakdown, prowlers, broken windows, gas safety and using extension leads. During a tour of the building it was noted that food which had been opened was labelled identifying the date of opening and the use by date. Harry Chamberlain Court Residential Home (44) DS0000024405.V332373.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 24 Harry Chamberlain Court Residential Home (44) DS0000024405.V332373.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 25 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 3 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 4 25 X 26 4 27 X 28 X 29 X 30 2 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 DS0000024405.V332373.R01.S.doc 2 3 X 3 X LIFESTYLES Standard No Score 11 X 12 3 13 3 14 3 15 4 16 3 17 3 Score PERSONAL AND HEALTHCARE SUPPORT Standard No 18 19 20 21 Score 3 3 3 X 3 X 3 X X 3 X Version 5.2 Page 26 Harry Chamberlain Court Residential Home (44) Yes 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. 2. Standard YA34 YA34 Regulation 17(3)(b) 19(1)(b) Requirement The Registered Persons must ensure that records are available for inspection in the care home. The Registered Persons must ensure that two satisfactory written references are obtained prior to any prospective staff member commencing duties. These references must be available for inspection. This is a repeat requirement. The Registered Persons must ensure that there is clear guidance regarding the administration of PRN medication The Registered Persons must ensure that care plans are updated to reflect service users changing needs with regards to aggressive behaviours The Registered Persons must ensure that staff are provided with up to date training on POVA The Registered Persons must make suitable arrangements to prevent the spread of infection by the use of communal hand towels in bathrooms Timescale for action 31/03/07 31/03/07 3. YA20 13(2) 31/03/07 4. YA6 15(2)(b) 31/03/07 5. 6. YA23 YA35 YA30 13(6) 13(3) 30/04/07 30/04/07 Harry Chamberlain Court Residential Home (44) DS0000024405.V332373.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 27 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 YA20 Good Practice Recommendations It is recommended that a copy of the service users medication profile and PRN guidance be included in the MAR file as well as in their personal records Harry Chamberlain Court Residential Home (44) DS0000024405.V332373.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 28 Commission for Social Care Inspection Suffolk Area Office St Vincent House Cutler Street Ipswich Suffolk IP1 1UQ National Enquiry Line: Telephone: 0845 015 0120 or 0191 233 3323 Textphone: 0845 015 2255 or 0191 233 3588 Email: enquiries@csci.gsi.gov.uk Web: www.csci.org.uk © This report is copyright Commission for Social Care Inspection (CSCI) and may only be used in its entirety. Extracts may not be used or reproduced without the express permission of CSCI Harry Chamberlain Court Residential Home (44) DS0000024405.V332373.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 29 - 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!