Inspection on 07/11/06 for Hastings

This inspection was carried out on 7th November 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 made no statutory requirements on the home as a result of this inspection and there were no outstanding actions from the previous inspection report.

Other inspections for this house

Hastings 10/11/09

Hastings 17/11/05

Hastings 10/06/05

Hastings 22/01/05

Hastings 06/07/04

Hastings 16/02/04

Similar services:

Maple Lodge

Heathlands

Aston Court Nursing Home

Breme

Ravenhurst

Bank House

Inspirations

Westmead

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

CARE HOMES FOR OLDER PEOPLE Hastings 130 Barnards Green Road Malvern Worcestershire WR14 3NA Lead Inspector Y South Unannounced Inspection 7th November 2006 09.20 X10015.doc Version 1.40 Page 1 The Commission for Social Care Inspection aims to: • • • • Put the people who use social care first Improve services and stamp out bad practice Be an expert voice on social care Practise what we preach in our own organisation Reader Information Document Purpose Author Audience Further copies from Copyright Inspection Report CSCI General Public 0870 240 7535 (telephone order line) This report is copyright Commission for Social Care Inspection (CSCI) and may only be used in its entirety. Extracts may not be used or reproduced without the express permission of CSCI www.csci.org.uk Internet address Hastings DS0000018685.V309086.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 2 This is a report of an inspection to assess whether services are meeting the needs of people who use them. The legal basis for conducting inspections is the Care Standards Act 2000 and the relevant National Minimum Standards for this establishment are those for Care Homes for Older People. They can be found at www.dh.gov.uk or obtained from The Stationery Office (TSO) PO Box 29, St Crispins, Duke Street, Norwich, NR3 1GN. Tel: 0870 600 5522. Online ordering: www.tso.co.uk/bookshop This report is a public document. Extracts may not be used or reproduced without the prior permission of the Commission for Social Care Inspection. Hastings DS0000018685.V309086.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 3 SERVICE INFORMATION Name of service Hastings Address 130 Barnards Green Road Malvern Worcestershire WR14 3NA 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) 01684 585000 hastings@heart-of-england.co.uk www.heart-of-england.co.uk Heart of England Housing and Care Limited Ms Johann Phelps Care Home 60 Category(ies) of Dementia - over 65 years of age (60), Old age, registration, with number not falling within any other category (60), of places Physical disability over 65 years of age (60) Hastings DS0000018685.V309086.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 4 SERVICE INFORMATION Conditions of registration: Date of last inspection 17/11/05 Brief Description of the Service: This purpose built home is situated in a residential area of Malvern. There are local amenities a few hundred yards from the home and public transport to Malvern town centre. The home is purpose built on three floors, has shaft lift access throughout and handrails appropriately placed. There are 24 single bedrooms on each of the two upper floors and 12 single rooms on the ground floor. Each bedroom has en-suite facilities. Each floor has lounge and dining areas for the residents and communal toilets and bathrooms fitted with suitable aids. There is also a level garden. The registered provider is Heart of England Housing and Care Ltd. Mrs Phelps is the registered manager and the responsible individual for the company is Mr John McCarthy. Care is provided for a maximum of 60 service users over 65 years of age of either sex who may require care due to old age, a physical disability or a mental health problem. In the Information supplied to the Commission for Social Care Inspection (CSCI) on 29.09.06 by the registered manager the scale of charges was quoted as £1840 to £1920 per month. Additional charges are made for private telephone calls, personal purchases of toiletries, literature, private health care, transport and television satellite services. Hastings DS0000018685.V309086.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 5 SUMMARY This is an overview of what the inspector found during the inspection. This was a key inspection. The focus was on the key standards and the requirements made in the previous report. Evidence was gathered from information provided to the Commission for Social Care Inspection since 17.11.05, questionnaires that the Commission for Social Care Inspection asked the home to distributed to residents, relatives and health care professionals and a site visit that took place on 07.11.06 which extended over eight and a half hours during which the inspector talked to three residents, five staff, undertook a partial tour of the building and assessed a range of documents. The inspector was assisted principally by the assistant care services manager Ms Debbie Williams. The home currently offers care to four service users who are visually impaired. An audio copy and a large print copy of this report will be provided as well as the standard copy. What the service does well: The home provides a warm welcome to everyone and is clean, well maintained and comfortable. Residents describe the staff as ‘lovely’, and ‘could not be better’. Staff are well trained and one person said that they were impressed by the availability of training courses they could participate in. Relatives describe their links with the home as excellent. One person said ‘we have been kept well informed on all matters.’ A good menu choice is provided and the residents have commented that there is always an alternative choice and the food is very good. Activities and events are arranged in which people can choose to participate if they wish and access to religious leaders and churches can be arranged if required. Hastings DS0000018685.V309086.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 6 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. The summary of this inspection report can be made available in other formats on request. Hastings DS0000018685.V309086.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 7 DETAILS OF INSPECTOR FINDINGS CONTENTS Choice of Home (Standards 1–6) Health and Personal Care (Standards 7-11) Daily Life and Social Activities (Standards 12-15) Complaints and Protection (Standards 16-18) Environment (Standards 19-26) Staffing (Standards 27-30) Management and Administration (Standards 31-38) Scoring of Outcomes Statutory Requirements Identified During the Inspection Hastings DS0000018685.V309086.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 8 Choice of Home The intended outcomes for Standards 1 – 6 are: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Prospective service users have the information they need to make an informed choice about where to live. Each service user has a written contract/ statement of terms and conditions with the home. No service user moves into the home without having had his/her needs assessed and been assured that these will be met. Service users and their representatives know that the home they enter will meet their needs. Prospective service users and their relatives and friends have an opportunity to visit and assess the quality, facilities and suitability of the home. Service users assessed and referred solely for intermediate care are helped to maximise their independence and return home. The Commission considers Standards 3 and 6 the key standards to be inspected. JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for the following standard(s): 3 (An intermediate care service is not provided by this home) Quality in this outcome area is good. This judgement has been made using available evidence including a visit to this service. People have access to all the information they need regarding the home. Places are only offered to people whose needs the home can meet. EVIDENCE: The Statement of Purpose, Service Users’ Guide and inspection reports were displayed in the reception area of the home. The administrator confirmed that all residents received copies in their ‘welcome packs’. Hastings DS0000018685.V309086.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 9 Residents and relatives confirmed in the questionnaire responses that they had received all the information they needed to help them make a choice of the home. The records indicated that a representative from the home visited and assessed each person’s needs prior to offering them a place in the home. No one was admitted to the home unless their needs could be met. People were able to enjoy a trial stay to assist in their decision regarding the home. Hastings DS0000018685.V309086.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 10 Health and Personal Care The intended outcomes for Standards 7 – 11 are: 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. The service user’s health, personal and social care needs are set out in an individual plan of care. Service users’ health care needs are fully met. Service users, where appropriate, are responsible for their own medication, and are protected by the home’s policies and procedures for dealing with medicines. Service users feel they are treated with respect and their right to privacy is upheld. Service users are assured that at the time of their death, staff will treat them and their family with care, sensitivity and respect. The Commission considers Standards 7, 8, 9 and 10 the key standards to be inspected. JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for the following standard(s): 7, 8, 9, 10, Quality in this outcome area is excellent. This judgement has been made using available evidence including a visit to this service. The personal and health care needs of residents are met. Residents are treated kindly with respect for their privacy and dignity. Medication is managed safely and administered in accordance with the instructions of the prescriber. EVIDENCE: The care records of three residents were assessed. These indicated that their needs were continually assessed and care plans were devised and reviewed to guide staff in providing the care to meet those needs. Risk assessments were undertaken, for example for falls, moving and handling, nutrition and skin care needs, and they were supported by appropriate care plans. Hastings DS0000018685.V309086.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 11 The care manager said that risk assessments for any aspects of challenging behaviours were completed and supported by appropriate care plans. Records were well maintained and the introduction of a new care record system enabled easy access to the information. However there was no evidence that residents, or with their permission their representative, had been involved in the discussion or decisions regarding their care plans. Information regarding ‘end of life wishes’ and religious needs could be more detailed in some records. The daily records demonstrated that appropriate care was given and care needs were being monitored. Resident told the inspector that they received the care they needed. In the questionnaire responses comments made by residents included; ‘I came here as an emergency and could not wish for anything better’. ‘Medical support is provided by senior staff’. A relative said ‘I have been particularly impressed by the speed of response and care shown by staff when my mother has been taken ill out of normal working hours. On one occasion the response was a major factor in helping my mother make a good recovery’. Three health care professionals completed and returned questionnaires. Comments they made were; (1) ‘This is a very well run home. They manage quite difficult and dependent (physically and mentally) elderly patients with a lot of compassion. This home is considered one of the best in the area. They do not call with trivia and will manage with phone call advice when appropriate’. (2)‘The staff are very caring but have a tendency to over use the GP service. They would benefit from some nursing input (even an employee) to manage the minor things that don’t really require visits. I suspect they worry about litigation’. (3) ‘I’m very happy with the care provided’. It should be noted that Hastings is not a nursing home and therefore even if a nurse was employed under the home’ registration she/he would not be permitted to carry out nursing duties. This can only be provided by the Primary Health Care Team. Medication was well managed. Storage and records were generally well maintained. A new system for recording the application of topical medicines had recently been introduced. However staff were not signing the records on every occasion. Prescribed ointments, creams and drops are medication and the records must reflect their administration. Hastings DS0000018685.V309086.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 12 The home was well supported by the local pharmacist and staff were appropriately trained. Residents confirmed that they were treated kindly and with respect. One person said ‘I feel very happy here. I feel happy’. A questionnaire response said ‘Resident and family were very impressed with the overall care and kindness of staff’. Assessment of an excellent induction training record demonstrated that privacy and dignity were included in the course. Residents were able to hold the keys to lockable storage in their bedroom and their bedroom door if they wished. All bedrooms had a telephone and mail was always delivered unopened with assistance being given if needed. Hastings DS0000018685.V309086.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 13 Daily Life and Social Activities The intended outcomes for Standards 12 - 15 are: 12. 13. 14. 15. Service users find the lifestyle experienced in the home matches their expectations and preferences, and satisfies their social, cultural, religious and recreational interests and needs. Service users maintain contact with family/ friends/ representatives and the local community as they wish. Service users are helped to exercise choice and control over their lives. Service users receive a wholesome appealing balanced diet in pleasing surroundings at times convenient to them. The Commission considers all of the above key standards to be inspected. JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for the following standard(s): 12, 13, 14, 15 Quality in this outcome area is excellent. This judgement has been made using available evidence including a visit to this service. Residents are able to choose the life routines they prefer and can choose to join in a range of activities if they wish. Links are maintained with families, friends and faiths. Residents can enjoy a good choice of good quality food. EVIDENCE: During the tour of the home it was observed that a notice board on every floor held an activities programme and information identifying the residents’ representative and his/her duties. Information regarding religious services was displayed and the assistant care service manager confirmed that representatives from other faiths paid private visits to their parishioners. Hastings DS0000018685.V309086.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 14 An activities organiser was employed for fifteen hours each week. Staff confirmed that residents had opportunities to join in activities such as games, bingo, and painting. Some residents enjoyed the garden , shopping and occasional outings. The manager supplied information regarding a wide range of internal and external events that take place, an ordinary activities that residents can be involved in. The latter is especially focused for people with dementia illnesses. Residents have access to a trolley shop and the home is well stocked with books, music and video tapes. Residents’ interests had been recorded in the three care records that were assessed. Their daily records did not contain much evidence of their involvement however the residents who spoke to the inspector said that they were happy in their bedrooms or amusing themselves. Eight residents completed and returned questionnaires. Most indicated that they were happy with the provision of activities. However other comments made were ‘Activities are limited for male residents’. ‘The residents are in various stages of dementia therefore as they are the majority activities are aimed at them. There are four residents with whom one can have a conversation’. Residents said that they were helped to arrange their day according to their wishes. A relatives said, ‘The staff have been exceptionally good in accommodating our relation. In order to settle her they have accepted her cat and looked after her as well’. The visitors’ book indicated that there was a steady stream of visitors to the residents through the day. Some residents went out with their visitors, with a member of staff or alone. It was observed that several residents made their way to the reception area and enjoyed talking to the administrator. Menu samples indicated that a choice of food was offered every day. Residents commented verbally that their food was good, and in the questionnaire responses that; ‘There is always an alternative choice (meals)’. ‘The food is very good’. ‘Considering the kitchen staff have to cater for 60 each meal and proximity of the kitchen to the dining rooms the food is generally excellent’. ‘The food is very good. A good variety’. Hastings DS0000018685.V309086.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 15 One resident needed a soft diet. The inspector was told that the components of the meal were liquidised together. This meant that there would be no differences in taste and the appearance would not be appealing. This is not considered to be good practice. Hastings DS0000018685.V309086.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 16 Complaints and Protection The intended outcomes for Standards 16 - 18 are: 16. 17. 18. Service users and their relatives and friends are confident that their complaints will be listened to, taken seriously and acted upon. Service users’ legal rights are protected. Service users are protected from abuse. The Commission considers Standards 16 and 18 the key standards to be. JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for the following standard(s): 16, 17 Quality in this outcome area is excellent. This judgement has been made using available evidence including a visit to this service. Residents and their relatives have access to information and raise any concerns they have. Staff respond appropriately. They have been well recruited and trained. EVIDENCE: It was observed that copies of the complaint procedure were included in the Statement of Purpose and Service Users’ Guide that were available in the reception area. The administrator confirmed that a copy was also included in every welcome pack. Residents indicated that they were able to raise any concerns that they had and staff confirmed that they knew how to respond to concerns raised by residents or relatives. A questionnaire response included the following comment; ‘If requests are made to senior staff they listen and act on what you say’. Hastings DS0000018685.V309086.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 17 The Commission for Social Care Inspection had received no complaints concerning the home in the period covered by this inspection. The records in the home and the pre inspection questionnaire completed by the manger indicated that the home had responded to three complaints. These had concerned the dining facilities, a member of staff’s attitude and the timing of courses at meal times. Investigation had found the concerns to be justified and appropriate action had been taken. Three staff were interviewed by the inspector. They described an acceptable recruitment process and their records supported this. Checks had been undertaken with the Criminal Records Bureau and references had been taken up before appointments were made. The assistant care manager said that on occasions it had been necessary for a member of staff to commence work before such clearance was received. On these occasions the individuals had been appointed subject to acceptable clearance and were only able to work under supervision and were not able to undertake personal tasks. The Commission for Social Care Inspection had been consulted regarding a sleeping in matter. It was not clear if those staff who had commenced work having been cleared under the PoVA (Protection of Vulnerable Adults) First system had subsequently had the full PoVA check. The assistant manager undertook to check the situation. Hastings DS0000018685.V309086.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 18 Environment The intended outcomes for Standards 19 – 26 are: 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. Service users live in a safe, well-maintained environment. Service users have access to safe and comfortable indoor and outdoor communal facilities. Service users have sufficient and suitable lavatories and washing facilities. Service users have the specialist equipment they require to maximise their independence. Service users’ own rooms suit their needs. Service users live in safe, comfortable bedrooms with their own possessions around them. Service users live in safe, comfortable surroundings. The home is clean, pleasant and hygienic. The Commission considers Standards 19 and 26 the key standards to be inspected. JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for the following standard(s): 19, 26 Quality in this outcome area is excellent. This judgement has been made using available evidence including a visit to this service. Residents live in a clean comfortable home that suits their needs and there are systems in place that address the risks of cross infection. EVIDENCE: A partial tour of the home was undertaken. It was clean and well maintained. The corridors and the communal rooms had been re carpeted and re floored. It was normal practice to redecorate each room as it became vacant. A bathroom was being upgraded on the day of the inspector’s visit and a ‘Parker’ bath was being fitted. The assistant care manager said that residents preferred this type of special bath to the medic bath that had previously been installed. Hastings DS0000018685.V309086.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 19 It was observed that bedrooms had been personalised with photographs and treasures. Residents said that they were happy with their rooms and the facilities provided. A housekeeper had recently been appointed. She was enthusiastic and had plans for working with the staff to developing cleaning programmes throughout the home. A questionnaire response noted ; Health and safety is the reason for some cleaning staff having an adversity to moving chairs, beds etc away from walls hence an accumulation of dust’. The housekeeper confirmed that this would be addressed in the programmes that were being devised. It was observed and staff confirmed that personal protective equipment was always available and liquid soap and disposable towels were appropriately placed. Waste disposal including the disposal of clinical waste was well managed. The laundry was well organised, equipped and clean. The records indicated that staff had received training in infection control. Hastings DS0000018685.V309086.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 20 Staffing The intended outcomes for Standards 27 – 30 are: 27. 28. 29. 30. Service users’ needs are met by the numbers and skill mix of staff. Service users are in safe hands at all times. Service users are supported and protected by the home’s recruitment policy and practices. Staff are trained and competent to do their jobs. The Commission consider all the above are key standards to be inspected. JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for the following standard(s): 27, 28, 29, 30 Quality in this outcome area is adequate. This judgement has been made using available evidence including a visit to this service. At busy times staff are under pressure to meet all residents’ needs. Staff are well recruited and trained to provide good care for vulnerable people. EVIDENCE: The pre inspection questionnaire stated that eleven staff had left the home’s employment since the last inspection. The administrator said that at the time of the inspector’s visit recruitment was underway for a night care assistant and more relief staff. The staff team included one person from Bulgaria, one from Latvia, and one from the Philippines. There were no communication issues and there were no cultural or faith needs that needed to be addressed during working hours. Hastings DS0000018685.V309086.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 21 The examples of duty rotas that were supplied to the Commission for Social Care Inspection indicated that the number of staff were appropriate for the number of residents. The home regularly undertook reviews of dependency to ensure fluctuations in needs were responded to. However concerns had been expressed by residents, relatives and staff that at times the levels were not adequate to meet the residents’ changing needs. In the questionnaire responses a relative said; ‘The day to day hands on care staff are superb but they get upset when they can’t help mum with washing and dressing and showering in a morning because there aren’t enough staff. She should have this help but doesn’t get it as much as she should. Mum then gets upset when she knows she looks a mess and smells. More care staff needed as a priority’. Two relatives ticked negative responses to the question on staffing levels. Residents’ questionnaire responses included; ‘Staff are available day and night’. ‘Hastings tries so hard to maintain a high standard of residential care despite a staff shortage at times’. Staff said that although eight staff were rostered on duty there were times when they felt rushed to meet increases in needs. Lead carers were located in each area but these staff had other duties as well as hands on care so they were not always available when needed. The Commission for Social Care Inspection had been notified by the manager on three occasions that there were concerns regarding staffing levels. Three staff were interviewed by the inspector. They demonstrated a good knowledge of the role and duties. They had been well trained and were appreciative of the training provision. The three staff records that were assessed confirmed that an acceptable recruitment process had been followed and the training records demonstrated their learning. The pre inspection questionnaire indicated that 36 care staff were employed and 20 of these had qualified to National Vocational Training (NVQ) level 2 or above. This equates to 55.75 and is above the 50 required by the National Minimum Standards. Hastings DS0000018685.V309086.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 22 Management and Administration The intended outcomes for Standards 31 – 38 are: 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. Service users live in a home which is run and managed by a person who is fit to be in charge, of good character and able to discharge his or her responsibilities fully. Service users benefit from the ethos, leadership and management approach of the home. The home is run in the best interests of service users. Service users are safeguarded by the accounting and financial procedures of the home. Service users’ financial interests are safeguarded. Staff are appropriately supervised. Service users’ rights and best interests are safeguarded by the home’s record keeping, policies and procedures. The health, safety and welfare of service users and staff are promoted and protected. The Commission considers Standards 31, 33, 35 and 38 the key standards to be inspected. JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for the following standard(s): 31, 33, 35, 38 Quality in this outcome area is excellent. This judgement has been made using available evidence including a visit to this service. The home is well managed and provides a good standard of care for the residents who live there. Weaknesses are identified and addressed by continual monitoring of systems. Health and safety is addressed in the interest of everyone in the home. Hastings DS0000018685.V309086.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 23 EVIDENCE: The management of the home is supported by good systems, structures and the registered provider/organisation. The manager is registered by the Commission for Social Care Inspection and is qualified and experienced to undertake her duties. A relative described the home as ‘generally very well run’. There was a quality assurance system based on the National Minimum Standards. Quality assurance questionnaires were regularly distributed by the home seeking the residents’ views on the standards of care, housekeeping and catering. The senior staff monitored the care records and the care process. The housekeeper and maintenance man monitored their areas of the service. The manager informed the CSCI that the provider had asked an independent company to undertake an annual survey of the quality of the service from the relatives’ perspective. Residents’ personal monies held in safe keeping were appropriately stored and managed. Staff received supervision on a 1:1 basis from a senior member of staff and in group support sessions, training and personal development meetings. It was difficult to assess if this equated to the frequency required by the National Minimum Standards and the staff did not consider the frequency was being met. It was recommended that the record system was changed so this became clearer. Health and safety was well addressed. The pre inspection questionnaire indicated that services and equipment were checked and maintained. The maintenance man’s records confirmed this. Staff records demonstrated that they were well trained in health and safety matters and their records confirmed this. No issues were observed in the home by the inspector. The accident records were acceptable and a regular audit was undertaken to identify trends that could be addressed to reduce risks and accidents. The Fire Risk Assessment was drawn up in 2005. Fire safety checks were being undertaken and staff were receiving fire training. There were some gaps in the fire safety training records. It was thought that the record was not up to date. This will be checked and if necessary addressed. Hastings DS0000018685.V309086.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 24 Hastings DS0000018685.V309086.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 Older People have been met and uses the following scale. The scale ranges from: 4 Standard Exceeded 2 Standard Almost Met (Commendable) (Minor Shortfalls) 3 Standard Met 1 Standard Not Met (No Shortfalls) (Major Shortfalls) “X” in the standard met box denotes standard not assessed on this occasion “N/A” in the standard met box denotes standard not applicable CHOICE OF HOME Standard No Score 1 2 3 4 5 6 ENVIRONMENT Standard No Score 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 X X 3 X X X HEALTH AND PERSONAL CARE Standard No Score 7 3 8 3 9 3 10 3 11 X DAILY LIFE AND SOCIAL ACTIVITIES Standard No Score 12 3 13 3 14 3 15 3 COMPLAINTS AND PROTECTION Standard No Score 16 4 17 X 18 3 4 X X X X X X 4 STAFFING Standard No Score 27 2 28 3 29 3 30 4 MANAGEMENT AND ADMINISTRATION Standard No 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 Score 3 X 3 X 3 3 X 3 Hastings DS0000018685.V309086.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 26 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 OP36 Regulation 18 Requirement Records must clearly demonstrate that all care staff receive formal supervision at least six times each year. Timescale for action 31/12/06 2. OP38 23 Records must clearly 31/12/06 demonstrate that all staff receive fire safety training in accordance with the recommendations of the Fire Authority. 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 OP7 Good Practice Recommendations Residents, or with their consent their representatives, should be involved in the discussion and agreement of their care plans. The ingredients of soft and liquidised meals should not be mixed together. 2 OP15 Hastings DS0000018685.V309086.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 27 Commission for Social Care Inspection Worcester Local Office Commission for Social Care Inspection The Coach House John Comyn Drive Perdiswell Park, Droitwich Road Worcester WR3 7NW 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 Hastings DS0000018685.V309086.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 28 - 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!