Inspection on 30/11/07 for Heeley Bank

This inspection was carried out on 30th November 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 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

Heeley Bank 08/01/09

Heeley Bank 05/06/07

Similar services:

Abbey The

Snydale Care Home

Hawkhills

Larchfield Manor

Beeches The - North Yorkshire County Council

The Grove Waltham

Carentan House

Ravensworth Lodge

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

CARE HOMES FOR OLDER PEOPLE Heeley Bank Heeley Bank Road Sheffield S2 3GL Lead Inspector Ivan Barker Unannounced Inspection 30th November 2007 09:30 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 Heeley Bank DS0000068866.V355785.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. Heeley Bank DS0000068866.V355785.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 3 SERVICE INFORMATION Name of service Heeley Bank Address Heeley Bank Road Sheffield S2 3GL 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) 0114 255 7567 0114 255 5803 heeleybank@schealthcare.co.uk CC Care Ltd Mrs Pamela Brookes Care Home 64 Category(ies) of Dementia - over 65 years of age (18), Old age, registration, with number not falling within any other category (46) of places Heeley Bank DS0000068866.V355785.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 4 SERVICE INFORMATION Conditions of registration: 1. The registered person may provide the following category of service only: Care home with nursing - Code N, to service users of the following gender: Either, whose primary care needs on admission to the home are within the following categories: Old age, not falling within any other category - Code OP; Dementia - Code DE The maximum number of service users who can be accommodated is: 64 The first floor is registered for nursing and personal care and has 2 wings. One is registered for 18 people in the category DE/E, Dementia for people 65 and over, nursing and personal care and the other is registered for nursing care 18 people in the category OP, Old Age not falling within any other category and will provide intermediate care. Bedrooms 10 and 40 must not be used to accommodate wheelchair users (whether self propelling or not) or anyone who needs a walking frame to mobilize. 5th June 2007 2. 3. 4. Date of last inspection Brief Description of the Service: Heeley Bank is a purpose built two storey building in the Heeley area of Sheffield. The home is divided into three units. Each unit had facilities for a designated category of people. There are a total of sixty-four bedrooms, all en-suite consisting of toilet and washbasin. There is a large car park to one side of the building and there is a large garden area. The weekly charges ranged between £320.00 and £515.60. There were additional charges for hairdressing, newspapers and chiropody. There were copies of the statement of purpose and service user guide available. Heeley Bank DS0000068866.V355785.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 5 SUMMARY This is an overview of what the inspector found during the inspection. Only a limited number of the National Minimum Standards were examined at this inspection (with emphasis on the ‘key standards’), and the previous requirements. The persons present at the inspection were: Mr Mark Nithsdale, acting manager. Ms Diana Coy, operations manager. Within this site visit, which occurred over a six hour period, the inspector toured the building, examined requirements relating to the previous inspection, case tracked 3 service users (Case tracked means looking at the care and service provided to specific people who use the service living at the home; checking records relating to their health and welfare, care plans and other records; by talking to the specific people who use the service; viewing their personal accommodation as well as communal living areas), and spoke with other people who use the service , and relatives and also 3 staff and examined assessments, care plans, risk assessments, menus, complaint files, staff files and quality monitoring documents. The history of the service was examined prior to the site visit. This included the Self-assessment document, telephone contacts, letters, and notifications. The manager listed as the registered manager in a previous page of this report is no longer at the service, and an acting manager is in post. The name of the previous manager will be removed when the CSCI (Commission for Social Care Inspection) has been informed in writing. What the service does well: People who use the service’s needs were known to the service prior to admission because care management teams and the manager’s assessments were in place. These two assessments ensured that the service have sufficient information. People who use the service benefit from the provision of accurate care plans and were satisfied with the care they received. People who use the service expressed their views, during the inspection; ‘We are satisfied with the care’. Heeley Bank DS0000068866.V355785.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 6 ‘It some times takes them an hour when I am waiting for the hoist but know other people need it’. ‘The care is good’. Activities were organised which provide stimulation to people who use the service and enhanced their quality of life. On discussing the activities with the people who use the service, their opinions were that; ‘We enjoy playing games’. ‘Activities do take place but I just like to watch’. ‘We go out when the staff can take us’. ‘I prefer to stay in my room and watch TV, but the staff come in to see me’. There was evidence that people who use the service were given the opportunity to exercise their right of a choice regarding meals. The general comments regarding the food were that; ‘The food is good’ (3 gentlemen) ‘The food is nice, and I get what I want’. ‘The quality of the meal is not as good as when the other company owned the home, but it’s not the cooks fault she has to work with what she gets’. ‘Can get drink and snacks when I ask for them’. ‘I have some of my own food brought in to supplement the food I get here’. When these comments were shared with the manager, he identified that a food survey to the ‘residents’ may be useful. People who use the service live in an environment that had been maintained to a good standard to provide a safe, well-maintained environment. The general comments were that; ‘The home is good’. ‘I always find it clean and well maintained’. ‘Its very nice here’. Heeley Bank DS0000068866.V355785.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 7 The manager provided evidence that staff had received training, which did reflect on the quality of care being delivered to the people who use the service. The staff recruitment process should provide protection for the people who use the service. The comments from people who use the service and relatives were; ‘The staff are good’. ‘I like the staff’. ‘Very good’. There was a new manager in post. He had been relocated from another position within the company to manage the home as an interim measure An experienced manager is in post. This will contributed to the effective organisation and operation of the service. There were positive comments from the staff regarding the new manager and the changes. The general comments were that ‘Things have improved’. ‘He (the new manager) has made some changes for the better’. Extensive quality assurance systems were in place that should assist the managers and company to measure the service against expected outcomes. What has improved since the last inspection? What they could do better: People who use the service benefit were placed at risk because of poor medication practice. Heeley Bank DS0000068866.V355785.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 8 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. Heeley Bank DS0000068866.V355785.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 9 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 Heeley Bank DS0000068866.V355785.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 10 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): Standards 3 and 6. People who use the service experience good quality outcomes in this area. We have made this judgement using a range of evidence, including a visit to this service. People who use the service’s needs were known to the service prior to admission because care management teams and the manager’s assessments were in place. These two assessments ensured that the service have sufficient information. EVIDENCE: On examination of the care management assessments within three care plans, it was established that there were assessments from care management. The manager advised that the care management assessments arrived by fax, rather than by post. Both assessments where comprehensive and detailed the people who use the service’s needs which would assist in providing sufficient information for the Heeley Bank DS0000068866.V355785.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 11 staff to decide if the service could met the people who use the service’s needs and provided sufficient information for care plans to be drawn up. The manager advised that intermediate care was provided within the service. This care service was a joint operation between the company and the PCT (Primary Care Trust). Care staff were provided by the service whilst specialist staff, for example physiotherapists were provided by the PCT. Heeley Bank DS0000068866.V355785.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 12 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): Standards 7, 8, 9 and 10. People who use the service experience adequate quality outcomes in this area. We have made this judgement using a range of evidence, including a visit to this service. People who use the service benefit from the provision of accurate care plans and were satisfied with the care they received but were placed at risk because of poor medication practice. EVIDENCE: On examination of the care plans, from three people who use the service, it was established that all three care plans were up to date. There were daily entries within the care plans. These entries recorded the care delivered on a daily basis, and the plans had been evaluated on a monthly basis. Comprehensive risk assessments were included within the documentation and included moving and handling, skin integrity, and other risk factors. These risk assessments had also been reviewed. People who use the service expressed their views, during the inspection; Heeley Bank DS0000068866.V355785.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 13 ‘We are satisfied with the care’. ‘It some times takes them an hour when I am waiting for the hoist but know other people need it’. ‘The care is good’. The storage, ordering, administration and disposal of medication procedures were discussed with the manager. The procedures explained by the manager were satisfactory. There was a signature-checking document, which contained the initials as written on the medication administration document and the member of staff’s signature. On examination of the medication administration records it was found that there were no omissions of signatures. All medication records had been signed when being checked in from the pharmacy. However whilst touring the ground floor of the building, it was observed that medications were being dispensed into a plastic cup and small pieces of paper with a name written on, was added to the cup. The process had been repeated until 7 cups were stacked together ready for delivery to the people who use the service. This was poor practice. Also medication was found on a chair in another room and within another room two plastic pots with medications were found on the lady’s table, the lady was present in the room. On asking the lady if the medication was hers, she confirmed that they were and attempted to take the medication. She then dropped one of the tablets into her lap and was assisted to retrieve the tablet. The lady had not been assessed as able to self medicate (to be responsible for and to take her own tablets). The managers spoke with the senior carer who was undertaking the medication round, but not in the presence of the inspector. They returned to advise that, from the information they had received they had established the following: The member of staff had undertaken the Boots training, however the previous unit manager, who no longer worked at the service, had instructed her to use the pot and paper method to speed up the medication process, and that the staff member was aware that this practice contradicted the information which she had received in the Boots training. She had given her apologises to the managers and agreed to following her training in future. The explanation given by the managers was discussed and concerns were expressed that the unit manager may have instructed other staff who gave out medication to give them out using the same poor practices. It was agreed that all staff who worked on the unit would be spoken with and their practices checked by the manager. Heeley Bank DS0000068866.V355785.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 14 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): Standards 12, 13, 14 and 15. People who use the service experience good quality outcomes in this area. We have made this judgement using a range of evidence, including a visit to this service. Activities were organised which provide stimulation to people who use the service and enhanced their quality of life. There was evidence that people who use the service were given the opportunity to exercise their right of a choice regarding meals. EVIDENCE: The manager advised that an activities co-ordinator was in post and employed for 25 hours per week, and there was a vacant post for an activities coordinator for 16 hours, and he was in the process of appointing to the vacancy. There was a programme of generalised planned social events displayed for December within the main entrance to the service. There were daily activity boards within each of the units. There was also posters displayed, which detailed when entertainers would be visiting and when outing would be occurring. The manager identified that an Heeley Bank DS0000068866.V355785.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 15 entertainer was booked for the afternoon that the inspection occur. It was observed that this did occur and the people who use the service were observed to be enjoying the entertainment. The manager provided evidence, relating to activities from the documentation within the care plans, These records showed when a person who use the service had participated in a activity or went out into the community. On discussing the activities with the people who use the service, their opinions were that; ‘We enjoy playing games’. ‘Activities do take place but I just like to watch’. ‘We go out when the staff can take us’. ‘I prefer to stay in my room and watch TV, but the staff come in to see me’. Regarding the meals, the manager advised that either a light or a cooked breakfast was available. There was a menu booklet on each dining table, which contained the whole weeks menus. The main meals for the day were displayed on a board. The manager advised that the meal order was taken the previous day. Copies of these were observed in the kitchen. The general comments regarding the food were that; ‘The food is good’ (3 gentlemen) ‘The food is nice, and I get what I want’. ‘The quality of the meal is not as good as when the other company owned the home, but it’s not the cooks fault she has to work with what she gets’. ‘Can get drink and snacks when I ask for them’. ‘I have some of my own food brought in to supplement the food I get here’. During the inspection there was an opportunity to speak with the cook. She identified that she took pride in the meals she provided and would welcome people who use the service’s views to improve. She explained that it had come to her attention that the people who use the service had expressed a wish to have ‘toasted’ sandwiches, so she had bought a sandwich toaster. When informing the manager of the people who use the service’s views. The manager identified that a food survey to the ‘residents’ may be useful. Heeley Bank DS0000068866.V355785.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): Standards 16 and 18. People who use the service experience good quality outcomes in this area. We have made this judgement using a range of evidence, including a visit to this service. The service had a complaints procedure and it was operating according to the company policy, this provided confidence that complaints were taken seriously and acted upon to address any shortfalls in care or service provision. Safeguarding adults training made aware of their responsibility regarding the protection of vulnerable adults. EVIDENCE: The service had a complaints procedure displayed at the entrance. People who use the service and relative were aware of its location. Copies were also available in the Service User Guide. The complaints file kept by the manager for his investigations were examined. There was one complaint, which was currently being investigated by the company. The Commission for Social Care were aware of this complaint by the complainant and have established what investigation are taking place. Regarding safeguarding adults, the safeguarding policies and procedures were available to the staff. Staff had undertaken Safeguarding Adults training, and the manager was able to evidence this by producing the training records. Heeley Bank DS0000068866.V355785.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 17 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): Standards 19 and 26. People who use the service experience good quality outcomes in this area. We have made this judgement using a range of evidence, including a visit to this service. People who use the service live in an environment that had been maintained to a good standard to provide a safe, well-maintained environment. EVIDENCE: On touring the building, the home was found to be clean, tidy, well maintained and decorated and furbished to a good standard. There had been considerable thought put into creating the decoration and other sensory items within unit for people who made dementia. Positive comments were received from the people who use the service and the relatives regarding the home. Heeley Bank DS0000068866.V355785.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 18 The general comments were that; ‘The home is good’. ‘I always find it clean and well maintained’. ‘Its very nice here’. The people who use the service’s rooms had been personalised and many contained photographs, personal belongings and items of furniture, which the individual or the family had provided. Heeley Bank DS0000068866.V355785.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 19 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): Standards 27, 28, 29 and 30. People who use the service experience good quality outcomes in this area. We have made this judgement using a range of evidence, including a visit to this service. The manager provided evidence that staff had received training, which did reflect on the quality of care being delivered to the people who use the service. The staff recruitment process should provide protection for the people who use the service. EVIDENCE: On examination of the staff rotas and examination of staff on duty, the following was established for the staffing levels across the three units. Am shift Pm shift Night shift 2 qualified nurses, 1 senior care staff and 9 care staff. 2 qualified nurses, 1 senior care staff and 9 care staff 1 qualified nurse, 1 senior care staff and 6 care staff. DS0000068866.V355785.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 20 Heeley Bank Plus. A manager, an administrator, receptionist, activities co-ordinator Ancillary staff included; domestics, and catering staff. Caring for a present occupancy of 61 people who use the service. A full assessment of the dependency levels of the people who use the service was not undertaken and compared with the indicated staffing levels. On examination of the three staff files, all contained the required documentation, including Criminal Records Bureau and POVA (Protection of Vulnerable Adults) checks. However one member of staff had gaps in her employment history within her application form. It was agreed that gaps should not be accepted, and it was noted that the member of staff had been employed for some years and that the application forms of the more recently appointments of staff did have a full employment history. One of the staff files monitored was from a member of staff from ‘overseas’. All relevant documentation had been obtained regarding the member of staff. On examination of the staff training records there were records that indicated the staff had received moving and handling, fire training and other relevant clinical training, except for two staff who had not received training in moving and handling since 2006. There was evidence, in the form of letters, in the staff files that these two members of staff had been advised of the training courses and the need to attend. One member of staff was proposed to work on Saturday, and the other member of staff later in the week. The manager chose to withdraw the Saturday shift and other shifts from the staff, until he had established that they had undertaken the training. Therefore as the outcome risk to people who use the service was reduced by the action taken by the manager, no requirement was stated regarding this issue. The comments from people who use the service and relatives were; ‘The staff are good’. ‘I like the staff’. ‘Very good’. Heeley Bank DS0000068866.V355785.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 21 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): Standards 31,33,35 and 38. People who use the service experience good quality outcomes in this area. We have made this judgement using a range of evidence, including a visit to this service. An experienced manager is in post. This will contributed to the effective organisation and operation of the service. Extensive quality assurance systems were in place that should assist the managers and company to measure the service against expected outcomes. EVIDENCE: There was a new manager in post. He had been relocated from another position within the company to manage the home as an interim measure, and had been in post for 2 weeks. He advised that he had 18 years experience in Heeley Bank DS0000068866.V355785.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 22 care and 7 years in management, and that he was to commence the Registered Managers award. Regarding service users monies there was a credit and debit system in operation. The people who use the service’s records were maintained on computerised system. Regarding Quality Assurance, the manager and operations manager undertake the quality monitoring of the service. The system was robust and included analysis of the care and service provision. The information from these documents was forwarded to the head office of the company for analysis. Regulation 26 documentations, which are a record of the registered person’s monthly visits, was complied on a monthly basis, evidence of this was seen at the visit. Regulation 37 notices, which are documents that are sent to the Commission regarding untoward occurrences, including falls, accidents etc; have been received by CSCI (Commission for Social Care Inspection). There had been issues relating to the management of the service since the last inspection, indeed the CSCI had been involved in meetings regarding the service. However since these meetings the managers of the company, particularly the operation manager had moved positively on the issues raised and made changes to improve the care and service provision. There were positive comments from the staff regarding the new manager and the changes. The general comments were that ‘Things have improved’. ‘He (the new manager) has made some changes for the better’. Heeley Bank DS0000068866.V355785.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 23 SCORING OF OUTCOMES This page summarises the assessment of the extent to which the National Minimum Standards for Care Homes for 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 3 HEALTH AND PERSONAL CARE Standard No Score 7 3 8 3 9 2 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 3 17 X 18 3 3 X X X X X X 3 STAFFING Standard No Score 27 3 28 3 29 3 30 3 MANAGEMENT AND ADMINISTRATION Standard No 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 Score 3 X 3 X 3 X X 2 Heeley Bank DS0000068866.V355785.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 24 Are there any outstanding requirements from the last inspection? NO STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS This section sets out the actions, which must be taken so that the registered person/s meets the Care Standards Act 2000, Care Homes Regulations 2001 and the National Minimum Standards. The Registered Provider(s) must comply with the given timescales. No. 1 Standard OP9 OP38 Regulation 12 Requirement There should be safe administration of the medications and people who use the service should not be put at risk because of poor practice. Timescale for action 31/12/07 RECOMMENDATIONS These recommendations relate to National Minimum Standards and are seen as good practice for the Registered Provider/s to consider carrying out. No. Refer to Standard Good Practice Recommendations Heeley Bank DS0000068866.V355785.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 25 Commission for Social Care Inspection Sheffield Area Office Ground Floor, Unit 3 Waterside Court Bold Street Sheffield S9 2LR 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 Heeley Bank DS0000068866.V355785.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 26 - Please note that this information is included on www.bestcarehome.co.uk under license from the regulator. Re-publishing this information is in breach of the terms of use of that website. Discrete codes and changes have been inserted throughout the textual data shown on the site that will provide incontrovertable proof of copying in the event this information is re-published on other websites. The policy of www.bestcarehome.co.uk is to use all legal avenues to pursue such offenders, including recovery of costs. You have been warned!