Inspection on 10/05/06 for Higher Ravenswing

This inspection was carried out on 10th May 2006.

CSCI has not published a star rating for this report, though using similar criteria we estimate that the report is (sorry - unknown). The way we rate inspection reports is consistent for all houses, though please be aware that this may be different from an official CSCI judgement.

The inspector found there to be outstanding requirements from the previous inspection report but made no statutory requirements on the home.

Other inspections for this house

Higher Ravenswing 18/07/07

Higher Ravenswing 04/01/06

Higher Ravenswing 05/07/05

Higher Ravenswing 21/01/05

Similar services:

Chirnside House

Keer Sands Residential Home

Ruskin Lodge

Bushell House

Langrigg House

Parkside

Dystlegh Grange

Thornton Lodge

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

CARE HOMES FOR OLDER PEOPLE Higher Ravenswing 251 Revidge Road Blackburn Lancs BB2 6DT Lead Inspector Mr Graham Oldham Key Unannounced Inspection 09:30 10th May 2006 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 Higher Ravenswing DS0000061156.V288543.R01.S.doc Version 5.1 Page 2 This is a report of an inspection to assess whether services are meeting the needs of people who use them. The legal basis for conducting inspections is the Care Standards Act 2000 and the relevant National Minimum Standards for this establishment are those for Care Homes for 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. Higher Ravenswing DS0000061156.V288543.R01.S.doc Version 5.1 Page 3 SERVICE INFORMATION Name of service Higher Ravenswing Address 251 Revidge Road Blackburn Lancs BB2 6DT 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) 01254 670115 care@ravenswinghomes.com Ravenswing Homes Ltd Mrs Valerie Dunning Care Home 14 Category(ies) of Old age, not falling within any other category registration, with number (14) of places Higher Ravenswing DS0000061156.V288543.R01.S.doc Version 5.1 Page 4 SERVICE INFORMATION Conditions of registration: 1. 2. Fourteen elderly service users requiring personal care can be accommodated at the home. The home must, at all times, employ a suitably qualified and experienced manager registered with the Commission for Social Care Inspection. 4th January 2006 Date of last inspection Brief Description of the Service: Higher Ravenswing is a detached house situated on the outskirts of Blackburn. The home is located in a semi-rural position with views overlooking a golf course. Higher Ravenswing is a Ltd company with Mr George Daniels nominates as the Responsible Individual. The house has been converted to provide accommodation for up to 14 residents. Car parking facilities are provided at the front of the property. Gardens are accessible to residents. There are separate lounge and dining facilities for residents to choose company or privacy. There are ten single bedrooms and two shared rooms. There is a stair lift. The weekly charges for the home are from £354 - £363. (Dated 9th May 2006). Additional charges are made for hairdressing, incontinence pads and outings. Higher Ravenswing DS0000061156.V288543.R01.S.doc Version 5.1 Page 5 SUMMARY This is an overview of what the inspector found during the inspection. This unannounced inspection took place on the 10th May 2006. Much of the information gained was obtained from talking to residents and staff members. The views of residents were obtained on a variety of topics. Two residents were case tracked. Case tracking gave the inspector an overall view of the specific care for the individual resident by checking the plans of care, other documentation and talking to residents and staff. One staff member and the Responsible Person were talked to about care issues and the training they had completed. Some of the views have been reported collectively with specific comments contained within the body of the report. The inspector took detailed notes during the inspection, which have been retained as evidence. Staff were directly and indirectly observed carrying out their tasks and interacting with residents. Paperwork examined included plans of care, assessment documentation, policies and procedures or documents relevant to each standard. A tour of the building was conducted. What the service does well: Residents said, I do some things for myself but they definitely treat me privately when they bath me” and “the girls look after me very well and treat me privately. I am comfortable with my care”. Staff protected the privacy and dignity of residents. One visitor said, “I come here when I want and there are no problems with visiting”. One resident case tracked said, “I get visitors and they come here as they like. My visitor takes me out”. The easy approach at the home encouraged visiting. Of 10 comment cards returned to the CSCI 8 residents said food was good. 2 residents thought food was usually good. Comments included, “very good” (twice), “meals are all right”, “good choice of meals”, “they look after my interests as far as my stomach because medically I have a delicate tummy. I am well looked after – fair play to them” and “meals are wonderful”. One resident case tracked said, “the food is good and they give me an alternative when I need it”. The meals served at the home were to resident’s preferences. Residents said, “where would I be now without the carers”, “I could not have lasted so long if they did not look after me so well” and “I am very happy here”. The attitude of staff gave residents a homely and friendly atmosphere to live in. Residents were assessed to enable staff to gain the knowledge to care for each individual. Higher Ravenswing DS0000061156.V288543.R01.S.doc Version 5.1 Page 6 Residents were able to talk to the responsible person and voice any concerns they had rather than complain. The open atmosphere created by the responsible person gave residents confidence to speak out if they needed to. The adult abuse procedures at the home protected residents from possible abuse. 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. Higher Ravenswing DS0000061156.V288543.R01.S.doc Version 5.1 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 Higher Ravenswing DS0000061156.V288543.R01.S.doc Version 5.1 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 at least once during a 12 month period. JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for the following standard(s): OP2, OP3 and OP4 The quality outcome for this standard group was good. Residents were assessed prior to their admission to the home to ensure they were suitably placed. Each resident had a copy of the terms and conditions for living at the home to ensure they were aware of their rights. Written confirmation the home met their needs was issued to long stay residents. Quality in this outcome area is poor. This judgement has been made using available evidence including a visit to this service. EVIDENCE: Two residents case tracked had assessment documentation contained within the plans of care. The assessment documentation had been completed by a member of staff and a plan of care developed from the assessment. Further information was available from social services. The assessment of residents gave staff the knowledge to develop a plan of care and meet the needs of each individual. There was a contract for each resident. The document had been signed by a resident or a family member. Of 10 comment cards returned to the Commission for Social Care Inspection (CSCI) 8 residents had received a Higher Ravenswing DS0000061156.V288543.R01.S.doc Version 5.1 Page 9 contract 2 residents did not know. The contract document explained to residents the terms and conditions for living at the home. Contained within the contract was a statement to each resident confirming the home met their needs. This was not issued to short stay residents. The Registered Person should inform each resident their needs can be met at the home. Of ten comment cards returned to the CSCI 8 residents said they always received the care and support they needed from staff. Two residents said usually. One resident who thought she usually received care and support commented, “I am impatient”. Further comments included, “completely” and “I think the staff are wonderful”. Staff were trained in many aspects of care. Staff individually and collectively had the skills to provide the care and services for each resident. Of 10 comment cards returned to the CSCI 8 residents received enough information about the home 2 did not. “my son made the arrangements for me as I lived out of town” and “it was all arranged by my grand-daughter” were comments to explain the lack of information. Residents were given sufficient information to enable them to make an informed choice to enter the home. Higher Ravenswing DS0000061156.V288543.R01.S.doc Version 5.1 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 at least once during a 12 month period. JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for the following standard(s): OP7, OP8, OP9 and OP10 The quality outcome for this standard group was good. Plans of care contained good information for staff to deliver care to residents. Residents had access to specialists to meet their health care needs. Administration of medication was satisfactory. Residents were treated with respect and dignity to ensure they were comfortable with the personal care they received. EVIDENCE: Two residents were case tracked during the inspection. One resident was able to discuss care. One staff member accurately described the care given to the resident’s case tracked. The plans of care, testimony of the staff member and resident accurately matched. One visitor present during the inspection said, “they discuss care issues with me”. Plans of care demonstrated resident or family involvement and had been reviewed on a regular basis. Plans of care contained sufficient information for staff to care for each resident. Plans of care examined during case tracking showed residents attended health care specialists. Specialists included Doctors, District Nurses, the Tissue Viability Nurse, Opticians and Chiropodists. One resident case tracked said, “I see the doctor and get all the medical attention I need”. Plans of care contained nutritional and pressure area assessments. Not all plans contained a Higher Ravenswing DS0000061156.V288543.R01.S.doc Version 5.1 Page 11 falls risk assessment. Of ten comment cards returned to the CSCI 9 residents thought they received the medical support they needed and 1 thought they usually received the medical support they needed. The resident who thought she usually received medical support commented, “but you know I am impatient”. Resident’s health care needs were met by attending health care specialists. There were policies and procedures for staff to follow for the administration of medication. There was a controlled drug cupboard and register. Drugs were securely stored. The medication administration chart was examined and contained no errors. There was a policy for the disposal of medication. Records were maintained of medication entering and leaving the home. Some staff had attended an accredited medication course. The responsible person said, “I am looking for a medication course for other staff and expect all senior staff to attend a course”. The person in charge said, “I can contact the pharmacist for advice – they are very approachable”. One resident case tracked said, “I always get my pills and they come on time”. The good administration of medication protected residents from possible harm. Residents case tracked said they were treated with privacy and dignity. Higher Ravenswing DS0000061156.V288543.R01.S.doc Version 5.1 Page 12 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 at least once during a 12 month period. JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for the following standard(s): OP12. OP13, OP14, OP15 The quality outcome for this standard group is good. Leisure activities were provided to help residents live a fulfilling life. Visiting was open and unrestrictive to encourage families to enter the home. Residents were able to exercise choice and retained some independent living. Residents received an appealing and nutritious diet. EVIDENCE: One resident case tracked said, “I like reading and watching television. I prefer to be in my room”. Of ten comment cards returned to the CSCI 1 said there were always enough activities, 6 said there were usually enough activities and 3 said there were sometimes enough activities. Comments included, “there are activities arranged but I prefer to go on outings rather than participate in indoor activities”, “I like to play dominoes and skittles. I used to do puzzles a while ago but it would be hard going now if you know what I mean”, “I used to play dominoes but I no longer want to”, “there are activities for all if you want to join in” and “I play dominoes and cards”. A staff member Said, “We try to get residents to do things but they say no we just want to watch television. We offer dominoes, cards, skittles, bingo and music and movement. We had a music quiz the other day which went well”. One resident went shopping on the day of the inspection. Residents were observed watching television, reading and talking to each other. Leisure activities were provided in a limited capacity but appeared to be satisfactory to the current residents residing at the home. Higher Ravenswing DS0000061156.V288543.R01.S.doc Version 5.1 Page 13 One visitor was very happy with the visiting arrangements and thought staff were approachable. One resident case tracked confirmed visiting was open and unrestricted. Residents had a choice of meals and routine. Residents were observed relaxing in their rooms, socialising with each other or visitors, watching television or wandering around. One member of staff said, “residents have a choice of what they want to wear, times for getting up or going to bed, food – they do what they want really”. Residents retained some independence with the choices they were able to make. A meal taken on the day of the inspection was hot, tasteful and nutritious. Any assistance given with eating was observed to be carried out in a discreet and pleasant manner. There was a choice of menu if desired. The kitchen was clean and tidy. The cook carried out necessary environmental health checks. All residents spoken to were satisfied with meals and mealtimes at the home. Higher Ravenswing DS0000061156.V288543.R01.S.doc Version 5.1 Page 14 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 inspected at least once during a 12 month period. JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for the following standard(s): 16 and 18 The quality outcome for this standard group was good. Residents were aware of their right to complain and confidant to approach management with any concerns. Residents were protected from possible abuse. EVIDENCE: No complaints had been made to the home or CSCI since the last inspection. There was a complaints procedure with appropriate timescales. The complaints procedure highlighted the address of the Commission. Of 10 comment cards returned to the CSCI all ten residents knew who they would complain to and 8 out of ten always knew how to complain. 2 residents usually knew how to complain. Comments included, “I would speak to the responsible individual”, “I would complain to the responsible individual”, “I will go to the owner”, “I just speak to the carers”, “I would ask a member of staff to sort it out with the owner” and “I would talk to the top dog”. The responsible person was regarded as approachable by residents and gave them the confidence to approach him with any concerns. The home had a copy of the ‘No Secrets’ document. The home had policies and procedures for the protection of adults. One member of staff had “read the adult abuse procedures”. One resident case tracked said, “I feel very safe here”. The home followed the Blackburn with Darwen Adult Abuse procedures to follow a local initiative. The responsible person said, “I am anticipating sending staff on a course for the protection of vulnerable adults”. Residents were protected from possible abuse. Higher Ravenswing DS0000061156.V288543.R01.S.doc Version 5.1 Page 15 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 at least once during a 12 month period. JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for the following standard(s): OP19 – OP26 The quality outcome for this standard group was good. The environment met residents needs. Infection control policies and procedures protected the health and safety of residents and staff. EVIDENCE: A plan of routine maintenance had been developed. The plan highlighted areas of the environment that needed attention and the maintenance man followed the plan to upgrade the building.. A tour of the building was conducted. All the communal areas and a sample of the bedrooms were inspected. Bedrooms had been personalised to resident’s tastes. One resident case tracked said, “look around – its nice isnt it. Those are all pictures of family members”. All areas observed were well decorated, clean and free from offensive odours. One resident case tracked said, “the home is kept very clean, it never smells”. Of 3 comment cards returned to the CSCI all 3 said the home was kept clean. Toilets were near to communal and private space. Baths were suitable for disabled residents. Each room was lockable and had a lockable facility within the room. Windows had suitable restrictors to help protect the health and safety of residents. Hot water outlets were tested and did not pose a threat of Higher Ravenswing DS0000061156.V288543.R01.S.doc Version 5.1 Page 16 scalding to residents. The environment was suitable to meet the needs of residents. There were policies and procedures for the control of infection. The laundry was sited away from food preparation areas and contained suitable equipment to clean clothes and bed linen. The walls and floors of the laundry were clean. Hand washing facilities were available where clinical waste was produced. One resident case tracked said, “the laundry is very satisfactory. I get through so many sheets but they just whip them away”. There were systems in place to protect residents from contracting Legionella. Infection control procedures protected residents and staff from possible harm. Higher Ravenswing DS0000061156.V288543.R01.S.doc Version 5.1 Page 17 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 at least once during a 12 month period. JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for the following standard(s): OP27, OP28, OP29 and OP30 The quality outcome for this standard group was adequate. Resident’s needs were met by the numbers and skill mix of a well-trained staff group. The recruitment procedures were not good and did not fully safeguard residents. Quality in this outcome area is poor. This judgement has been made using available evidence including a visit to this service. EVIDENCE: The duty roster was examined during the inspection. All returned comment cards said residents thought they received the care and support they needed. There were sufficient numbers of suitably qualified staff and the details were recorded on the roster. Two staff files examined during the inspection contained documents to prove the home had not recruited staff in a responsible manner. References had not been obtained. There was no CRB documentation for one staff record. Other documentation such as an application form, interview form, terms and conditions of employment, job description and record of induction was contained within the files. The recruitment procedures did not fully protect residents from possible abuse. Copies of training undertaken were observed. One staff member on duty confirmed she had undertaken suitable training. There was a matrix, which highlighted training staff had undertaken or highlighted any gaps were training was required. More than 50 of staff had completed NVQ training. The training of staff ensured staff had the knowledge to care for the resident group accommodated at the home. Higher Ravenswing DS0000061156.V288543.R01.S.doc Version 5.1 Page 18 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 at least once during a 12 month period. JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for the following standard(s): The quality outcome for this standard group was adequate. There was not a registered manager suitably qualified and competent currently employed at the home. Quality in this outcome area is poor. This judgement has been made using available evidence including a visit to this service. Quality assurance systems had been developed but needed some more work to fully meet the required standard. Quality in this outcome area is poor. This judgement has been made using available evidence including a visit to this service. Resident’s financial interests were safeguarded. The health, safety and welfare of residents and staff was promoted and protected. EVIDENCE: The Responsible Individual said, “I hope to have a manager in post by the end of July”. Evidence was observed to confirm the Responsible Individual was interviewing possible candidates on the evening of the inspection. The home must have a suitably qualified and competent manager registered with the CSCI. Higher Ravenswing DS0000061156.V288543.R01.S.doc Version 5.1 Page 19 Quality assurance systems had been further developed since the last inspection. Resident’s had completed a questionnaire. Where necessary the manager had reacted to the comments of residents. There were recorded staff and resident meetings. The responsible person said, “I am aware I need to complete questionnaires for stakeholders and hope to complete this within three months”. Quality assurance systems will be good when the views of stakeholders have been obtained. The Responsible person said, “I do not handle the finances for any residents but do keep some pocket money for residents”. The system used protected residents from possible financial abuse. The registered manager had completed a pre-inspection questionnaire prior to the inspection. Records of health and safety checks were checked against the questionnaire and were accurate. Gas and electrical appliances and installations had been maintained. There was a health and safety policy and procedures. A health and safety poster was observed in the building. The registered manager had a copy of the legislation as detailed within the standard. Staff had been trained in health and safety issues such as first aid, health and safety, infection control, food hygiene and moving and handling. The health and safety systems helped protect the health and welfare of residents and staff. Higher Ravenswing DS0000061156.V288543.R01.S.doc Version 5.1 Page 20 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 Higher Ravenswing DS0000061156.V288543.R01.S.doc Version 5.1 Page 21 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 3 3 2 X N/A HEALTH AND PERSONAL CARE Standard No Score 7 3 8 2 9 2 10 3 11 X DAILY LIFE AND SOCIAL ACTIVITIES Standard No Score 12 2 13 3 14 3 15 3 COMPLAINTS AND PROTECTION Standard No Score 16 4 17 X 18 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 STAFFING Standard No Score 27 3 28 3 29 2 30 3 MANAGEMENT AND ADMINISTRATION Standard No 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 Score 2 X 2 X 3 X X 3 Higher Ravenswing DS0000061156.V288543.R01.S.doc Version 5.1 Page 22 Are there any outstanding requirements from the last inspection? YES STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS This section sets out the actions, which must be taken so that the registered person/s meets the Care Standards Act 2000, Care Homes Regulations 2001 and the National Minimum Standards. The Registered Provider(s) must comply with the given timescales. No. Standard Regulation Requirement Timescale for action 1 OP8 12(1)(a) The registered person must 30/06/06 ensure falls risk assessments are completed to make proper provision for the health and welfare of each resident. 2 OP29 19 The registered person must not 31/05/06 employ staff unless checks have been undertaken to prove their fitness. 3 OP31 8(1)(a)(b) The responsible individual must 30/08/06 employ a suitably qualified and experienced person to manage the home 4 OP33 24 The registered person must 31/07/06 ensure quality assurance meet current guidelines. (Carried forward from 31/10/06 RECOMMENDATIONS These recommendations relate to National Minimum Standards and are seen as good practice for the Registered Provider/s to consider carrying out. No. Refer to Good Practice Recommendations Standard 1 OP4 The registered person should ensure all short term residents receive written confirmation the home could meet their needs. 2. OP9 The registered person should ensure all members of staff administering medication complete an accredited medication course. 3 OP12 The registered person should ensure the views of residents are obtained for providing suitable leisure activities. Higher Ravenswing DS0000061156.V288543.R01.S.doc Version 5.1 Page 23 Higher Ravenswing DS0000061156.V288543.R01.S.doc Version 5.1 Page 24 Commission for Social Care Inspection East Lancashire Area Office 1st Floor, Unit 4 Petre Road Clayton Business Park Accrington BB5 5JB 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 Higher Ravenswing DS0000061156.V288543.R01.S.doc Version 5.1 Page 25 - 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!