Inspection on 18/10/05 for Headonhey

This inspection was carried out on 18th October 2005.

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 no outstanding requirements from the previous inspection report, but made 5 statutory requirements (actions the home must comply with) as a result of this inspection.

Other inspections for this house

Headonhey 21/07/06

Headonhey 07/07/05

Headonhey 29/10/04

Headonhey 27/07/04

Similar services:

Clover House

Parkside

Park Lodge

Mere Hall View

St Bonaventures

Hudson Road

Whitewalls

Home Farm

Extracts from inspection reports are licensed from CQC, this page was updated on 09/07/2008.

CARE HOME ADULTS 18-65 Headonhey 34 Harboro Road Sale Manchester M33 5AH Lead Inspector Michelle Moss Unannounced Inspection 18th October 2005 10:40 Headonhey DS0000005612.V258155.R01.S.doc Version 5.0 Page 1 The Commission for Social Care Inspection aims to: • • • • Put the people who use social care first Improve services and stamp out bad practice Be an expert voice on social care Practise what we preach in our own organisation Reader Information Document Purpose Author Audience Further copies from Copyright Inspection Report CSCI General Public 0870 240 7535 (telephone order line) This report is copyright Commission for Social Care Inspection (CSCI) and may only be used in its entirety. Extracts may not be used or reproduced without the express permission of CSCI www.csci.org.uk Internet address Headonhey DS0000005612.V258155.R01.S.doc Version 5.0 Page 2 This is a report of an inspection to assess whether services are meeting the needs of people who use them. The legal basis for conducting inspections is the Care Standards Act 2000 and the relevant National Minimum Standards for this establishment are those for Care Homes for Adults 18-65. They can be found at www.dh.gov.uk or obtained from The Stationery Office (TSO) PO Box 29, St Crispins, Duke Street, Norwich, NR3 1GN. Tel: 0870 600 5522. Online ordering: www.tso.co.uk/bookshop This report is a public document. Extracts may not be used or reproduced without the prior permission of the Commission for Social Care Inspection. Headonhey DS0000005612.V258155.R01.S.doc Version 5.0 Page 3 SERVICE INFORMATION Name of service Headonhey Address 34 Harboro Road Sale Manchester M33 5AH 0161 969 3527 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) Stockdales of Sale, Altrincham & District Ltd Mr Simon Andrew Shaw Care Home 7 Category(ies) of Learning disability (7) registration, with number of places Headonhey DS0000005612.V258155.R01.S.doc Version 5.0 Page 4 SERVICE INFORMATION Conditions of registration: 1. All service users have a learning disability and may have an associated physical disability. 7th July 2005 Date of last inspection Brief Description of the Service: Headonhey is a care home providing personal care and accommodation for 7 young adults with complex needs (registered for learning disabilities and associated physical disabilities). It is managed by Stockdale’s of Sale, Altrincham and District Limited, which is a charitable organisation. The home is located in an established residential area in Sale, close to shops, bus and train routes and other amenities. The home was opened in 1992 and consists of a two-story building. The communal areas are located on the ground floor, including a lounge, kitchen and dining area. All bedrooms are single and situated on the first floor with a passenger lift provided for access. Bathroom and shower facilities are provided on both the ground and first floor. The home has a drive and patio area to the front of the property and a paved patio area to the rear. All outdoor areas were accessible for wheelchair users. Headonhey DS0000005612.V258155.R01.S.doc Version 5.0 Page 5 SUMMARY This is an overview of what the inspector found during the inspection. This inspection was the home’s second unannounced visit for the year and took place over one weekday in October. The visit lasted approximately 3.5 hours. A group of residents were spoken with at the home’s social therapy service, as well as three staff and the general manager. The visit took a specific focus on how the home promoted and protected residents in three areas independence, choice and well-being. This included looking at a range of records including care plans, medication charts, newsletters, staff meeting minutes, staff training records and speaking with staff about practices of care within the home. The term of address preferred by the users of the service was confirmed as “residents”. It was felt this best reflected the function and purpose of the service. The inspection only looked at a limited number of standards, so this report should be read together with the earlier report to get a full picture of how the home is meeting the needs of the residents living there. What the service does well: The home has been operating for a number of years offering a homely and spacious accommodation for 7 young adults that required high levels of support in aspects of daily living and personal care. The home paced a strong emphasis on community integration and meaningful life experience. Promoting choice was understood by staff and was seen through staff practices in supporting the residents. Finding out what residents liked to do was carried out particularly well and was well recorded in a “person centred” plan. This was a unique plan of care that had been written with the full involvement of the resident. The plan gave a lot of information about what the resident liked, disliked and what was important to them. All care plans seen gave detailed information about promoting choice, independence and well – being. For example, things the residents liked to eat and the ranges of meaningful activities they liked to do. Further evidence of the home doing this well was seen by the way each resident’s bedroom was decorated, laid out and equipped. Headonhey DS0000005612.V258155.R01.S.doc Version 5.0 Page 6 The home had a flexible social therapy service, which meant the residents were able to participate in a wide range of meaningful activities. The staff were well supported in areas of training and had regular supervision, staff meetings and handovers that meant they were kept well informed about the needs of the residents. The staff team were all involved in the home’s key worker system, which gave staff member’s additional responsibilities to certain residents to ensure their well-being was promoted including the residents care plans were kept updated. The home sought the views of residents well including completing annual satisfaction surveys. What has improved since the last inspection? What they could do better: There were some things at the home that could be done better. These included: • Ensuring that all care practices done in the home did not compromise the resident’s rights to privacy. In particular how a listening device is used upstairs to monitor the welfare of residents. That when staff are making a record on the medication chart about medication administered to a resident that this is done in a way that gives the full details including the time it is given. To make sure all bathrooms / toilets have a good stock of paper towels and liquid soap. That the temperature of the social therapy room is maintained at a comfortable temperature. • • • Headonhey DS0000005612.V258155.R01.S.doc Version 5.0 Page 7 • That staff of all departments needed to have better communication about the activities the residents are to be involved in. Part of this must include knowing about the time a resident has spent in the wheelchair. That when staff on duty are receiving handovers there is a system in place that ensures the residents still receive continuous support. • 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. Headonhey DS0000005612.V258155.R01.S.doc Version 5.0 Page 8 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 Headonhey DS0000005612.V258155.R01.S.doc Version 5.0 Page 9 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): NA EVIDENCE: This section of outcomes were not examined during this inspection in light that the home had not admitted any new residents for some time. Headonhey DS0000005612.V258155.R01.S.doc Version 5.0 Page 10 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. Residents were central to the development of their individual care plans. The degree of detail ensured the staff team were well informed about the way the residents wished to be care for. EVIDENCE: A random sample of care plans was examined. This included new care plans that were being brought in at the time of the inspection. The plan was written with the full involvement of the residents and had been done under a person centred approach. The plan was entitled “Essential Life Style Plan”. This was a detailed document that was very informative about the way the residents wished their lives be at the home. It included what was important to them, how to keep healthy and safe, what they liked and disliked and included a section about what has proven to work well for them. Parents had also been involved in the development of the plan. By the use of all these different sources of information the plan did give evidence about how the home promoted and protected resident’s well being, choice and independence. Headonhey DS0000005612.V258155.R01.S.doc Version 5.0 Page 11 The day-to-day care plans of two residents were examined. The records were used by staff to record daily events happening in the residents’ lives and were supported by risk assessments and essential information about the resident. The care plan was reviewed twice a year. However, on speaking to staff it was not possible to ascertain what formal steps were being taken to ensure the plan was updated when changes in needs arose between the 6 monthly formal reviews. The staff spoke about the use of handovers to keep them all informed. Although it was agreed between the staff members on duty that this system did not give any formal evidence of changes that demonstrated the care plan was being kept under a continuous review. On speaking to the general manager it was confirmed that a new system was being introduced as part of the manager’s monthly monitoring of the service, which was aimed a addressing this shortfall. Headonhey DS0000005612.V258155.R01.S.doc Version 5.0 Page 12 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, & 17 The residents were supported to be actively involved in their local community and take part in their chosen cultural and religious activities. Furthermore, residents were offered a varied menu, healthy diet and their eating and drinking needs assessed and met by a competent staff team. However, the communication channel between services did not always safeguard the residents’ well-being. EVIDENCE: At the time of the visit the residents were all being supported in various activities. These were either through services operated in home e.g. social therapy service or through attending other outreach day care services and college. Staff spoken to about the development of the social therapy identified increasing staffing that would give further choice and a flexible service to residents. The social therapy staff team and the home staff team were seen to work close together to ensure the wishes of residents were respected. On observing staff interacting with residents it was confirmed the residents were consulted over what they wanted to do. A staff member said that the staffing levels during the day were usually between 4 to 6 which meant they were able to support residents in attending community based activities. In addition, a Headonhey DS0000005612.V258155.R01.S.doc Version 5.0 Page 13 new vehicle had been purchased by the organisation, which offered greater choice of activities. From examining the care plan details it was found that they demonstrated how the home met residents religious and cultural needs including how these should be respected by the staff team. The staff spoke about how they were attempting to establish a better picture of what educational and leisure opportunities residents enjoyed. Using a weekly diary the staff were recording observations of the way a resident responded to different activities. All the information was used to work with the residents to establish the preferred activities. This was proving successful in picking the right college courses for residents, especially where the views of the residents were identified through their body language and behaviour. A number of sources of information were seen about offering residents healthy food and how the residents’ nutritional needs were assessed. This included the recording of factors associated with eating and drinking disorders and the safeguards that were required to be in place to ensure a resident’s health and well being was not compromised. Where residents required specialised feeding, staff were found to be competent in the skills required to maintain the resident’s health. This extended to having set protocols to be followed when potential problems arose. A sample of menus and records of residents preferred choices of meals were examined. From examining the two documents side by side it was confirmed that the menu served represented the preferred meals of the residents. A range of eating aids were seen to be used by the staff that enabled residents to maintain their independence for eating and drinking. The way staff members were seen to assist residents did appear sensitive. For example, a resident that had visual impairment was informed about the things being offered to them including checking they liked the drink. Throughout the inspection evidence could be seen that demonstrated the outcomes for residents lifestyle was positively promoted by the home. However, one concern was raised. One resident had been informed they were going swimming and was assisted by staff in preparation for the trip. Two hours later on visiting the social therapy service the resident had not gone and was found to be still wearing their outdoor clothing. It was unclear why the resident had not gone on their trip. The staff were asked but did not know the reasons. The comfort of the resident was raised, in particular that they had been in their wheelchair for over two 2 hours. It was of further concern that the resident was outside and no one appeared able to confirm how long the resident had been outside on what was a cold day. On speaking to the staff about the observation they immediately assisted the resident and ensured they had a drink and was made comfortable. The staff were asked about what was Headonhey DS0000005612.V258155.R01.S.doc Version 5.0 Page 14 the period of time a resident should be in a wheelchair. None of the staff could give a clear answer. It was necessary to seek the advise of health professionals on such a matter. A requirement to address this shortfall has been made under standard 18. Headonhey DS0000005612.V258155.R01.S.doc Version 5.0 Page 15 Personal and Healthcare Support The intended outcomes for Standards 18 - 21 are: 18. 19. 20. 21. Service users receive personal support in the way they prefer and require. Service users’ physical and emotional health needs are met. Service users retain, administer and control their own medication where appropriate, and are protected by the home’s policies and procedures for dealing with medicines. The ageing, illness and death of a service user are handled with respect and as the individual would wish. The Commission considers Standards 18, 19, and 20 the key standards to be inspected at least once during a 12 month period. JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for the following standard(s): 18, 19 and 20 The health and personal care needs of residents were overall well met by a skilled staff team with excellent links to health professionals. However, this good practice was compromised in some practices in the care of medicines, use of listening devices, handovers and channels of communication. EVIDENCE: A listening device was used which was described by staff as being a monitor to ensure they knew the residents that chose to retire to bed in the evening remained well. The staff members also said it was used during the night for the same reasons. The listening part of the device was located in the corridor upstairs and the receiver located in the dining room. The staff members described the listening device as being able to pick up all noises well. However, questions were raised about how the home ensured they were achieving a balance between protecting the well being of the residents and respecting their privacy. No clear balance could be confirmed. There was a need to have a protocol in place for the use of any form of listening devices and have risk assessments in place where such equipment would be used that had the potential to impose on the resident’s rights to privacy. Headonhey DS0000005612.V258155.R01.S.doc Version 5.0 Page 16 The staff were seen to be supporting residents with intimate care in a manner that ensured the resident’s privacy was maintained. On examining the Essential Life Style plans that were being developed information on choice over preferred dress, hairstyle and use of makeup could be seen as part of the ways the home met the needs of the resident. The medication records of all residents were seen. In the majority of cases the records were maintained well with an accurate audit trail seen. However, there were a couple of entries where the staff signature was missing and time missed off when ‘as and when required’ medication had been given. The home supported residents with complex health needs. Their care plans were a vital source of information about how their needs were required to be meet by the staff team. A member of staff said that they were given training in all areas where they were required to assist a resident to keep healthy and safe. The home was found to be well equipped with aids that ensure the health of residents could be safeguarded. The daily care plans examined gave a detailed record of the health needs of the residents including the joint care between the home and health professionals to ensure the resident’s health needs were appropriately met. Previously in this report the care of a resident was raised. This concerned the lack of consistency in the support of the resident when the channels of communication between two areas of the service had broken down. A requirement has been made accordingly. Some aspects of the staff handovers did have the potential to restrict the movement of residents and reduce the direct support / care of residents. It was recommended the current system be reviewed. Headonhey DS0000005612.V258155.R01.S.doc Version 5.0 Page 17 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 residents’ welfare was safeguarded by the home’s adult protection procedures. Furthermore, the views of residents were sought and an opportunity given to raise concerns or comments. EVIDENCE: The complaint records were examined. The last recorded complaint was in 2002. The 2004 annual questionnaire findings further supported the level of complaints received by the service as being very low. At the time of the inspection the 2005 satisfaction questionnaire was being completed. Of those randomly sampled none had indicated any necessity to raise a complaint about the service. Information received from the provider via a pre inspection questionnaire confirmed the home were providing staff with training in vulnerable adult protection and that recruitment of staff was done with all appropriate checks including completing POVA firsts and CRB checks. Headonhey DS0000005612.V258155.R01.S.doc Version 5.0 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 at least once during a 12 month period. JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for the following standard(s): 26 & 30 The resident’s all had personalised bedrooms that promoted their choice and independence. However, hand-washing facilities did not always provide good infection control measures and the temperature in the building varied. These weaknesses had the potential to compromise the health and well-being of residents. EVIDENCE: All bedrooms seen were individualised to reflect residents’ personal preference. This extended to a strong focus being placed on personal choice, for example, a resident’s love of a football team. The layout of the bedroom was done in a way that ensured the resident could retain independence. This included the positioning of lighting and entertainment systems. A concern was raised by the difference in temperature between the main part of the home and the social therapy area. During the time the inspector visited the social therapy area a resident required a blanket to ensure they remained sufficiently warm. Headonhey DS0000005612.V258155.R01.S.doc Version 5.0 Page 19 Information received via a questionnaire by the provider confirmed that health and safety checks and testing were completed regularly within the home. However, during a tour of the premises some of the bathrooms /toilets were not well stocked with adequate paper towels and liquid soap. Headonhey DS0000005612.V258155.R01.S.doc Version 5.0 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 at least once during a 12 month period. JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for the following standard(s): 33 & 35 A competent and well-trained staff team supported the residents. EVIDENCE: From the information received from the provider and feedback from staff about training, it was confirmed they received over 5 paid training days per year. This training was specific to the specialised aspects of the service. For example, Epilepsy Awareness, Moving & Handling, Care of Medicines, NVQ in Care and First Aid. Staff spoke about the way handovers had changed within the home. This included both the morning and afternoon staff being included. They said that this meant all staff were more informed about the needs of the residents. The staff members said that for purposes of confidentiality and the anxiety of one particular resident all residents were being asked during handover times to go into the lounge. The residents were consulted over having music or TV on during the period the handover took place. A staff member said the residents appeared ‘ok’ with the new arrangement. However, on speaking further with staff two areas of concern were raised. The first understood the procedure that would be used if a resident chose not to go to the lounge. The second was ensuring residents were appropriately supported whilst a handover took place. This was of particular importance as staff described some handovers could be lengthy. To ensure consistency in supporting the residents is maintained a recommendation was made under standard 18 of this report. The staff members said that they had a staff meeting every fortnight. Headonhey DS0000005612.V258155.R01.S.doc Version 5.0 Page 21 Conduct and Management of the Home The intended outcomes for Standards 37 – 43 are: 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. Service users benefit from a well run home. Service users benefit from the ethos, leadership and management approach of the home. Service users are confident their views underpin all self-monitoring, review and development by the home. Service users’ rights and best interests are safeguarded by the home’s policies and procedures. Service users’ rights and best interests are safeguarded by the home’s record keeping policies and procedures. The health, safety and welfare of service users are promoted and protected. Service users benefit from competent and accountable management of the service. The Commission considers Standards 37, 39, and 42 the key standards to be inspected at least once during a 12 month period. JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for the following standard(s): 39 The residents’ views are actively sought by the home and their views are incorporated into improvement and development of the service. EVIDENCE: The home was at the time of the inspection actively completing the annual satisfaction survey. Samples of responses received from the residents were examined. The questionnaire was supported by pictorial imagines to assist the residents to rate the service. Key workers were assisting residents with their additional comments. Three areas were given to rate the service fair – good – excellent. On the documentation “smiley faces” were used. However, this had the potential to be misleading, for example a fair rating showed a sad face. On a positive note the information, which was included in the questionnaire, demonstrated residents were being consulted and the views openly sought. The questions asked in the questionnaire did suggest that the home was attempting to promote and protect residents’ choice and well-being. Headonhey DS0000005612.V258155.R01.S.doc Version 5.0 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 CONCERNS AND COMPLAINTS Standard No 1 2 3 4 5 Score X X X X X Standard No 22 23 Score 3 3 ENVIRONMENT INDIVIDUAL NEEDS AND CHOICES Standard No 6 7 8 9 10 Score 3 3 X 3 X Standard No 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 STAFFING Score 2 X 3 X X X 2 LIFESTYLES Standard No Score 11 X 12 3 13 3 14 X 15 X 16 X 17 Standard No 31 32 33 34 35 36 Score X X 3 X 4 X CONDUCT AND MANAGEMENT OF THE HOME 4 PERSONAL AND HEALTHCARE SUPPORT Standard No 18 19 20 21 Headonhey Score 2 3 2 X Standard No 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 Score X X 3 X X 3 X DS0000005612.V258155.R01.S.doc Version 5.0 Page 23 no Are there any outstanding requirements from the last inspection? STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS This section sets out the actions, which must be taken so that the registered person/s meets the Care Standards Act 2000, Care Homes Regulations 2001 and the National Minimum Standards. The Registered Provider(s) must comply with the given timescales. No. 1 Standard YA18 Regulation 12 Requirement The home must ensure a procedure is in place for using listen devises to make sure that the residents right to privacy are not compromised. The home must ensure that when residents have planned activities cancelled that their welfare is not compromised by making sure the residents continues to be appropriately supported including: a) The resident not having to spend prolonged periods in their wheelchair unless an assessment states otherwise. b) That a communication channel is in place to make sure all staff caring for the resident are informed of any change in the planned activity. The medication record must provide a full audit trail of all medication administered by staff including the times when PRN medication is administered and why. DS0000005612.V258155.R01.S.doc Timescale for action 30/11/05 2 YA18 12 30/11/05 33 YA20 13 30/11/05 Headonhey Version 5.0 Page 24 4 YA24 23 5 YA30 13 The heating in the social therapy must be adequate to ensure the residents’ health is not compromised. All bathrooms/toilets must have adequate stocks of paper towels and liquid soap to ensure infection control within the home is not compromised. 30/11/05 30/11/05 RECOMMENDATIONS These recommendations relate to National Minimum Standards and are seen as good practice for the Registered Provider/s to consider carrying out. No. 1 Refer to Standard YA18 Good Practice Recommendations The handover period between staff should be managed in a way that does not restrict a residents movement and make sure the needs of residents are consistently met Headonhey DS0000005612.V258155.R01.S.doc Version 5.0 Page 25 Commission for Social Care Inspection CSCI, Local office 9th Floor Oakland House Talbot Road Manchester M16 0PQ 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 Headonhey DS0000005612.V258155.R01.S.doc Version 5.0 Page 26 - Please note that this information is included on www.bestcarehome.co.uk under license from the regulator. Re-publishing this information is in breach of the terms of use of that website. Discrete codes and changes have been inserted throughout the textual data shown on the site that will provide incontrovertable proof of copying in the event this information is re-published on other websites. The policy of www.bestcarehome.co.uk is to use all legal avenues to pursue such offenders, including recovery of costs. You have been warned!