Inspection on 10/07/06 for Hunningley Grange

This inspection was carried out on 10th July 2006.

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

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

Other inspections for this house

Hunningley Grange 30/03/10

Hunningley Grange 17/02/10

Hunningley Grange 24/11/09

Hunningley Grange 30/07/09

Hunningley Grange 11/07/07

Hunningley Grange 30/11/05

Hunningley Grange 25/05/05

Hunningley Grange 23/09/04

Hunningley Grange 21/07/04

Similar services:

Snydale Care Home

Abbey The

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 Hunningley Grange 327 Doncaster Road Stairfoot Barnsley South Yorkshire S70 3PJ Lead Inspector Christine Rolt Key Unannounced Inspection 10th July 2006 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 Hunningley Grange DS0000018258.V300312.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. Hunningley Grange DS0000018258.V300312.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 3 SERVICE INFORMATION Name of service Hunningley Grange Address 327 Doncaster Road Stairfoot Barnsley South Yorkshire S70 3PJ 01226 287578 01226 287578 none NONE Mr Azad Choudhry 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) Mrs Julie Scholey Care Home 36 Category(ies) of Old age, not falling within any other category registration, with number (36) of places Hunningley Grange DS0000018258.V300312.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 4 SERVICE INFORMATION Conditions of registration: Date of last inspection 30th November 2005 Brief Description of the Service: Hunningley Grange is a detached residence with a purpose built extension, registered to provide personal care for 36 residents. All accommodation and services are on the ground floor. The home is located in the centre of Stairfoot, approximately two miles from Barnsley town centre and situated on a main bus route. The home is within walking distance of a full range of shops e.g. chemist, newsagent, hairdressers, dentist, supermarkets, post office, health centre, cafes and fast food outlets. There is car parking at the front and side of the home. The weekly fee was £315 per week. Hairdressing, chiropody, toiletries and non-emergency taxi service were not included in the weekly fee and were charged separately. The registered manager supplied this information in the Pre-Inspection Questionnaire dated June 2006. Hunningley Grange DS0000018258.V300312.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 5 SUMMARY This is an overview of what the inspector found during the inspection. This was a key inspection and comprised information already received from or about the home and a site visit. The site visit was from 9:30 am to 5.20 pm on 10th July and from 1.45 pm to 5.45 pm on 12th July 2006. The registered manager, Mrs. Julie Scholey was present and provided assistance throughout the two days. The Area Manager, Mrs. Pat Smith, was present for some parts of the two days and attended the feedback. The majority of the residents were seen and chatted to during the site visit, and of these, four were asked detailed questions about their opinions of the home and were tracked throughout the inspection. Three members of staff were interviewed. During the site visit, one relative was asked for their views and a further three relatives were contacted by telephone. Three social workers were contacted for their views of the home. Comment cards were sent to ten residents and of these two were completed and returned. A sample of records was examined and a partial inspection of the building was carried out. The inspector wishes to thank the manager, staff, residents, relatives and social workers for their assistance and co-operation. What the service does well: The home had a welcoming atmosphere. It was clean and there were no offensive odours. Residents and their relatives were happy with residents’ care. Comments included “She’s treated in the way she likes to be treated”, “…Always clean…” and “Smashing”. The food was good and the cook did her own baking. Food preferences were taken into consideration – “You only have to ask for anything special and it’s there”. The manager provided good leadership and ensured that all staff were trained to do their jobs. Comments about her were all very positive “Very approachable, listens, takes everything on board”, “Very caring, listens, goes out of her way”, “Excellent, gives support to clients”. All mandatory health and safety training was up to date and 90 of care staff were trained to NVQ Level 2 or above. This training was evident in staff’s work practice and the respect given to residents. Comments about the staff were all positive, “They’re very kind” “Very caring and competent” and “Residents are very complimentary about the staff” Hunningley Grange DS0000018258.V300312.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 6 General impressions of the home were “Very pleased”, “Everything is fantastic” and “Don’t think I would get a better home than this” 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. Hunningley Grange DS0000018258.V300312.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 7 DETAILS OF INSPECTOR FINDINGS CONTENTS Choice of Home (Standards 1–6) Health and Personal Care (Standards 7-11) Daily Life and Social Activities (Standards 12-15) Complaints and Protection (Standards 16-18) Environment (Standards 19-26) Staffing (Standards 27-30) Management and Administration (Standards 31-38) Scoring of Outcomes Statutory Requirements Identified During the Inspection Hunningley Grange DS0000018258.V300312.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 8 Choice of Home The intended outcomes for Standards 1 – 6 are: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Prospective service users have the information they need to make an informed choice about where to live. Each service user has a written contract/ statement of terms and conditions with the home. No service user moves into the home without having had his/her needs assessed and been assured that these will be met. Service users and their representatives know that the home they enter will meet their needs. Prospective service users and their relatives and friends have an opportunity to visit and assess the quality, facilities and suitability of the home. Service users assessed and referred solely for intermediate care are helped to maximise their independence and return home. The Commission considers Standards 3 and 6 the key standards to be inspected at least once during a 12 month period. JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for the following standard(s): 1, 2, 3 and 6. Quality in this outcome area is good. This judgement has been made from evidence gathered before, during and after the visit to this service. This home does not provide intermediate care. Prospective residents had the information they needed to make an informed choice about where to live. Residents only moved into the home after their needs had been assessed and been assured that the home could meet their needs. They had written contracts/terms and conditions with the home to ensure that they were aware of what was and was not included in their fees. EVIDENCE: Residents and their relatives said that they had viewed the premises, received information, seen the Service User Guide and asked questions about this home. One resident said, “Very informative brochure… made very welcome… answered all our questions and provided welcome refreshments”. Residents and relatives said that they had chosen this home because “Mum liked this the Hunningley Grange DS0000018258.V300312.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 9 best”, “Near where she lived”, “Local”, “Good reports of the home” and “Mum chose – it suited what she wanted”. One resident who was in a wheelchair said that she had looked around a few homes but this was the only one that offered her a “nice big room”. One relative said that this home had not been her mother’s first choice but had moved in temporarily until a room became available at the first choice home. However, she was so pleased with the home, the staff and the service, she had decided not to move. Both she and her mother thought everything about the home was “Fantastic”. The last inspection report was displayed in the foyer. All residents had been issued with copies of the Service User Guide and the manager said that a copy was made available for prospective residents and their relatives to read, and copies could be issued on request. Residents were assessed prior to admission to the home and copies of the assessments were seen on residents’ files. Relatives said that residents had contracts/terms and conditions with the home and copies of these were seen on residents’ files. Hunningley Grange DS0000018258.V300312.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 10 Health and Personal Care The intended outcomes for Standards 7 – 11 are: 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. The service user’s health, personal and social care needs are set out in an individual plan of care. Service users’ health care needs are fully met. Service users, where appropriate, are responsible for their own medication, and are protected by the home’s policies and procedures for dealing with medicines. Service users feel they are treated with respect and their right to privacy is upheld. Service users are assured that at the time of their death, staff will treat them and their family with care, sensitivity and respect. The Commission considers Standards 7, 8, 9 and 10 the key standards to be inspected at least once during a 12 month period. JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for the following standard(s): 7, 8, 9 and 10. Quality in this outcome area is good. This judgement has been made from evidence gathered before, during and after the visit to this service. The health, personal and social care needs of residents were set out in individual care plans and health needs were met. Medication procedures, in general, ensured that residents were protected. Residents’ privacy and dignity were respected EVIDENCE: Four care plans were checked and these showed the action that needed to be taken to ensure residents’ needs were met. Risk Assessments were in place. Accidents and falls were recorded on residents’ files and 72-hour monitoring sheets were in place. All falls were monitored and referred to the Falls Clinic if considered necessary. Nutritional assessments were carried out and residents were weighed regularly. Care plans and assessments were reviewed monthly but there was no evidence that the residents or their relatives were involved in these reviews. This was discussed during the site visit. Residents’ files Hunningley Grange DS0000018258.V300312.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 11 contained inventories of their clothing and personal effects. did not provide sufficient detail to enable identification. However, these One of the four residents self-administered his medication. A risk assessment had been completed and facilities were available for safekeeping. Medication for the other three residents who were tracked, was in a monitored dosage system, it was checked and tallied with the Medication Administration Records sheets, but the date of receipt of the medication had not been entered on the MAR sheets. Also, a resident who was on respite care had a blister pack of medication that was not boxed and did have the relevant medical information, except brief details supplied by the resident’s relative. None of the staff who dealt with medication had queried the lack of information, although they had all received formal medication training. Controlled drugs were stored correctly and records were maintained correctly. Medication that required refrigeration was stored in a refrigerator solely for that purpose. Refrigeration temperatures were recorded. Residents and their relatives said that residents’ care and health needs were met and relatives were kept informed. Comments were “Alright here – keep you clean and look after you well”, “Come on leaps and bounds” and “110 ”. Social workers comments were that residents were “Well cared for”, “Clean”, “Well dressed” and “Well presented”. Residents had mobility aids to maintain their independence. Residents, relatives and staff said that residents were treated with respect and dignity. Comments were “Definitely”, “Yes, treat her in the way she likes to be treated”, “Staff are kind”, and “Oh yes, all the time” This was observed throughout the site visit e.g. knocking on bedroom doors and waiting until asked before entering, staff’s calm and friendly demeanour when dealing with residents. Hunningley Grange DS0000018258.V300312.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 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): 12, 13, 14, and 15. Quality in this outcome area is adequate. This judgement has been made from evidence gathered before, during and after the visit to this service. Residents’ lifestyle in the home did not always match their expectations and preferences. They were encouraged to maintain contact with their family, friends and the local community as they wished and had choice and control over their lives. Residents received a wholesome appealing balanced diet with choices at all meals. EVIDENCE: Residents were relaxed and said that they were generally satisfied with the home. Residents who were fairly independent said that there was enough for them to do, but one resident said that activities were only arranged “sometimes” and went on to say “I would like to take part in more outings”. Another resident when asked how often activities took place said “Never”. Relatives were also asked if there were activities that the residents could take part in. They said “No”, although one relative mentioned a Summer Fayre in September. The manager said that a regular activity was ‘movement to Hunningley Grange DS0000018258.V300312.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 13 music’. She went on to say that it was sometimes difficult to get residents to participate but this had improved since the sessions had been held in the garden during the warm weather. There were no organised activities taking place during the site visit, and the home did not employ an activities coordinator. This was discussed with the manager and the area manager. The manager said that entertainment was brought into the home. Staff said that they had one to one sessions with the residents where they chatted and did nail care. The manager said that residents who were capable went out by themselves, (which was observed during the site visit) and staff took residents for walks in the local area. The manager said that they had attempted bingo and dominoes but residents lost interest. Some residents said that they would like to go out on trips and the manager said that she was aware of this and was attempting to organise more of these. There was no information on display to inform residents of any activities. The manager said that a member of staff had taken a resident to church and the resident’s relative confirmed this. Relatives said that when they visited the home and were always made welcome. Residents considered that they had freedom of choice and their rights were respected. One resident said, “(Staff name) likes the same films as me. She told me about a good film that was on last night, so I stayed up and watched it”. Prior to the site visit copies of menus were supplied, which showed variety and choice at all meals. The cook did home baking. During the site visit, it was noted that staff ensured that residents were regularly offered drinks and kept hydrated during the hot weather and several residents were enjoying a glass of beer. The manager said that this was residents’ choice and some of the residents liked a sherry in the evening. Residents and visitors said that the food was good. A social worker said that a resident had told her the food was “excellent”. Comments were “The food is excellent and the menus varied”, “Very good”, “Fried breakfast”, “Great”, “Only have to ask for anything special and its there”, “Always get special bread for her”, “Whatever fruit she wants”, “They come round with the tea menu to see what you want”, and “(Staff name) did me a dippy egg and soldiers one evening – it was lovely”. The manager said that special utensils were provided for those who needed them to enable residents to retain their independence and assistance was given where required. Hunningley Grange DS0000018258.V300312.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 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. Quality in this outcome area is good. This judgement has been made from evidence gathered before, during and after the visit to this service Residents and their families were confident that complaints would be dealt with. Residents were protected from abuse. EVIDENCE: The complaints procedure was displayed on the notice board. Minor updates needed to be made to the information. The home’s complaint record was seen and this showed what action had been taken to address complaints and concerns. The residents and relatives who were asked said that if they had reason to complain, they would tell the manager and considered her to be “very approachable” and “…straight and upfront”. The CSCI had not received any complaints about this service. All staff had undertaken Adult Protection training with the exception of new employees who were booked on this training. All staff had also seen a video on adult protection. Since the last key inspection, the manager had reported a member of staff to the Adult Protection Unit and the Commission for Social Care Inspection. All the required procedures had been followed to ensure that residents were protected. The manager subsequently referred the member of staff to the Protection of Vulnerable Adults. Hunningley Grange DS0000018258.V300312.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 15 Another incident at the home went through the Adult Protection procedure. The manager followed all the required procedures and the case was taken out of adult protection. Hunningley Grange DS0000018258.V300312.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 16 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): 19 and 26. Quality in this outcome area is good. This judgement has been made from evidence gathered before, during and after the visit to this service. Residents lived in a safe, well-maintained environment that was clean and hygienic. EVIDENCE: The home was welcoming and there were no offensive odours during the site visit. Three bedrooms, a bathroom, lounges and the dining room were checked. All were clean and tidy. The corridor was in the process of being redecorated. The gardens were well tended and pretty. Residents’ and relatives’ comments about the home were positive. “It’s clean”, “Very good”, “It’s alright” (said positively), “Always clean”, “Bed’s always lovely and clean, sheets always clean, mum’s always clean”. One relative thought that there ought to be more side tables for residents to place their drinks. The manager Hunningley Grange DS0000018258.V300312.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 17 agreed to look into this. Social Workers who were asked about their impressions of the home said “Above adequate” and “Very good”. Mobility aids and equipment, i.e. wall bars, raised toilet seats, support rails, were provided to enable residents to maintain their independence. Hunningley Grange DS0000018258.V300312.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 18 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): 27, 28, 29 and 30. Quality in this outcome area is good. This judgement has been made from evidence gathered before, during and after the visit to this service The numbers and skill mix of staff met all residents’ needs. Staff were trained and competent to do their jobs. Residents were supported and protected by the home’s recruitment practices. EVIDENCE: There were sufficient staff on duty during this site visit. Three staff files were checked. These showed evidence that files included the relevant information as required by the Care Homes Regulations, including references, Criminal Records Bureau disclosures, application forms, dates of employment and photographs. For ease of reference, a method for improving the filing of this documentation was discussed and recommended. The Pre-inspection Questionnaire provided information that 90 of care staff were qualified to NVQ Level 2 or above, which exceeded the minimum requirement of 50 . The manager said that the remaining care staff were due to commence this training. All new staff undertook induction training. According to the Pre-inspection Questionnaire, 12 of the staff had current first aid certificates. Hunningley Grange DS0000018258.V300312.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 19 Staff were observed to be calm, friendly and professional in their approach and care practices. Comments from residents, relatives and social workers were “Staff are very kind”, ”Even the young girls are okay with them”, “No concerns about the staff”, “Very caring and competent” and “Residents are very complimentary about the staff”. Hunningley Grange DS0000018258.V300312.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 20 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): 31, 33, 35 and 38. Quality in this outcome area is good. This judgement has been made from evidence gathered before, during and after the visit to this service. The manager was fit to be in charge of the home. The home was generally run in the best interests of residents. Residents’ financial interests were safeguarded. Residents’ health, safety and welfare were promoted. EVIDENCE: The registered manager was a good role model for staff. She provided leadership and staff respected her. She said that she was currently undertaking the Registered Managers Award. Comments about the manager were positive and included “Julie has always been there”, “Always find her all right – she’s straight and upfront”, “Very approachable, listens, takes everything on board”, “Very caring, listens, goes out of her way”, and Hunningley Grange DS0000018258.V300312.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 21 “Excellent, she’s given support to my clients”. A relative noted that the manager always made sure that she saw all the residents at least once per day, no matter how busy she was. The handyman carried out repairs and maintenance within the home. The manager said that she carried out daily checks of the home, but there were no records to verify this. The implementation of a Quality Assurance Monitoring System that included environmental checks and the auditing of procedures was discussed. Residents and relatives, who were asked, said “No” they had not been asked for their opinions of the home and didn’t think that there had been any residents and relatives meetings. The manager said that she would organise a residents and relatives meeting, although the previous one she had organised at the end of last year had resulted in only one relative turning up. Mrs. P. Smith, the area manager, was based at the home, but had not produced a written report on the conduct of the home, as required by regulation, since February 2006. This was discussed during the site visit and Mrs. Smith agreed to re-commence production of the reports. Residents said that they could choose to look after their own personal allowances, have it looked after by their families or have it looked after by the home. One of the four residents who were tracked, chose to look after his personal allowance. The other three residents who were tracked had their personal allowances looked after by the home and this was checked. Cash was held separately for each resident and the amounts tallied with the records. Receipts for purchases were kept and all transactions were countersigned. Relatives said that if they brought money into the home for their parent, they were always given a receipt. The manager ensured that all staff were up to date with training to promote safe working practices. For ease of reference, she had a staff training matrix, which identified the courses that staff had attended and when refresher courses were due. All training was on a rolling programme. According to the Pre-Inspection Questionnaire, within the last year staff had undertaken training in infection control, medication, adult protection, moving and handling, fire awareness, Parkinson’s Disease and dealing with dementia. Future training was adult protection for new employees and refresher courses in first aid, health and safety and food hygiene. Fire drills were held regularly. weekly. The handyman carried fire alarm tests out The Pre-Inspection Questionnaire provided information on the dates that systems and equipment had been serviced and maintained. Hunningley Grange DS0000018258.V300312.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 22 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 3 3 3 X X N/A HEALTH AND PERSONAL CARE Standard No Score 7 2 8 3 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 3 17 X 18 3 3 X X X X X X 3 STAFFING Standard No Score 27 3 28 4 29 3 30 3 MANAGEMENT AND ADMINISTRATION Standard No 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 Score 3 X 2 X 3 X X 4 Hunningley Grange DS0000018258.V300312.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 23 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. 1 2 Standard OP7 OP9 Regulation 15 13 Requirement Residents must be consulted about their care plans during the monthly reviews The correct procedure for the receipt, administration, recording and disposal of medication must be followed. Residents must be consulted about their social interests and a programme of activities implemented. A quality assurance programme that includes the views of residents and their representatives must be implemented and records kept of outcomes. (Previous timescales not met 01/02/06). The registered provider or his representative must visit the home and produce a written report each month as required by Regulation 26 of the Care Home Regulations. A copy of the monthly report must be sent to the CSCI. Timescale for action 06/09/06 12/07/06 3 OP12 16 06/09/06 4 OP33 24 06/09/06 5 OP33 26 12/07/06 Hunningley Grange DS0000018258.V300312.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 24 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 2 Refer to Standard OP7 OP29 Good Practice Recommendations The inventories of residents’ clothing and personal possessions should provide more detail to assist with identification A system for easy reference of documentation in staff recruitment files should be implemented. Hunningley Grange DS0000018258.V300312.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: 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 Hunningley Grange DS0000018258.V300312.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!