Inspection on 14/11/06 for Ifield Park

This inspection was carried out on 14th November 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 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

Ifield Park 13/10/05

Ifield Park 31/05/05

Ifield Park 13/10/04

Ifield Park 25/05/04

Similar services:

The Shelley

Springfield House

Sutton Lodge Nursing Home

St Helier`s Residential Hotel

St Joseph`s

Ridgemount

Wingham Court

Old Hastings House

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

CARE HOMES FOR OLDER PEOPLE Ifield Park Rusper Road Ifield Crawley West Sussex RH11 0JE Lead Inspector Miss Helen Tomlinson Unannounced 14th November 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 Ifield Park DS0000014583.V313336.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. Ifield Park DS0000014583.V313336.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 3 SERVICE INFORMATION Name of service Ifield Park Address Rusper Road Ifield Crawley West Sussex RH11 0JE 01293 594200 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) info@IfieldParkCareHome.co.uk Ifield Park Housing Society Limited Mrs Janis Linda Bain Care Home 72 Category(ies) of Old age, not falling within any other category registration, with number (72) of places Ifield Park DS0000014583.V313336.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 4 SERVICE INFORMATION Conditions of registration: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Up to 21 male and/or female service users in the Category OP requiring nursing care may be admitted/accommodated in Woodruff Benton House. Up to 22 male and/or female service users in the category OP requiring personal care only may be admitted to Ellwood Place. Up to 29 male and/or female service users in the category OP requiring personal care only may be admitted to Penn Court. Only persons over the age of 65 years may be admitted to the home. The total number of service users to be accommodated at Ifield Park must not exceed 72. 13th October 2005 Date of last inspection Brief Description of the Service: Ifield Park is registered as a care home with nursing and is able to accommodate up to seventy-two older people, over the age of sixty-five years. Residents are accommodated in three separate buildings. These are called Woodruff Benton, which provides nursing care, Penn Court and Ellwood Place, which provide personal care. All rooms have en-suite facilities and a variety of communal space is provided in each unit. This includes lounges, dining areas and conservatories. There is a separate building in which is located the offices and training/meeting facilities. The home is located in a quiet residential area on the outskirts of Crawley. It is situated down a private drive, away from the road. There are extensive grounds, much of which is safely accessible to residents. Car parking is available. Ifield Park DS0000014583.V313336.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 5 SUMMARY This is an overview of what the inspector found during the inspection. This was an unannounced inspection carried out by two inspectors, Miss Helen Tomlinson and Mrs June Hough. The inspectors arrived in the home at 9.30am and left at 6pm. The manager and responsible person for the home were present throughout the inspection. At the time of the inspection sixty three residents were accommodated. Prior to the visit to the home information was gathered from previous inspections and information received regarding the service. During the inspection a full tour of the premises took place, inspectors spoke to the residents, relatives, staff, manager and responsible individual. Care practices were observed, care plans examined and other documents seen as necessary throughout the inspection. Following the last inspection two requirements were made which had been met at this inspection. One requirement was made at this inspection. Any good practice recommendations made are within the body of the report. The responsible individual had discussed, with the Commission, plans for the home to be relocated to a new site, in the Autumn of 2008. These plans are for a newly built home to be erected at a new site, close to the existing site. A full consultation process had taken place with the residents, relatives and other agencies such as social services. What the service does well: Residents spoke highly of the staff saying they were “kind and helpful”. They discussed how they liked “a laugh with them” and described the home as a “happy place to live.” Staff worked well together as a team. They received a large amount of relevant training which they said helped them in their work. Staff spoke highly of the managers saying they were supportive and approachable. They said the atmosphere was open and they were consulted about they day to day running of the home and any changes. Residents had received thorough assessments of their needs prior to being accommodated in the home. These assessments of health care needs were ongoing and kept under review. A comprehensive plan of care was drawn up from these assessments, which was also regularly reviewed. Ifield Park DS0000014583.V313336.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 6 There were a large amount of activities available for residents to choose to join in with. These ranged from group activities to one to one sessions and trips out. Four activities assistants were employed in the home. Visitors were welcomed into the home and kept informed of any changes in the care of their relative. The individual choices and preferences of the residents were explored and respected, with all residents being offered the support of an advocacy service should they choose. Residents and visitors said they would discuss any concerns or issues with any member of staff and felt these would be dealt with appropriately and swiftly. Records of complaints were kept and a procedure present. The staff numbers were appropriate to meet the needs of the residents. Additional staff for the provision of social activities meant this important part of life was not ignored. Staff received a large amount of training which was relevant to their work and included the protection of vulnerable adults. Staff were recruited in a way which protected the residents. The health and safety of the residents was protected by staff. The home is managed by an experienced person who had completed up to date training. The management team was supportive to staff and a happy and friendly atmosphere was present in the home. What has improved since the last inspection? What they could do better: The social history and preferences of the residents who are unable to discuss this with the staff should be explored and documented. All staff must be aware of the correct procedure to follow should an allegation of abuse be made to them. Ifield Park DS0000014583.V313336.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 7 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. Ifield Park DS0000014583.V313336.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 8 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 Ifield Park DS0000014583.V313336.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 9 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): 3 Prospective residents have a thorough assessments of their needs carried out, and are informed in writing that the home can meet their needs, before being accommodated. Quality in this outcome area is excellent. This judgement has been made using available evidence including a visit to the service EVIDENCE: Staff confirmed that all residents had their needs assessed, prior to being accommodated in the home. This was carried out by a person with the necessary skills and experience. In the files examined a thorough written assessment of need was present, which had been completed prior to the resident entering the home. This included all health and personal care needs, a medical history and personal details. A letter was also on file which confirmed that, following this assessment, the home was able to meet the needs of the resident. Ifield Park DS0000014583.V313336.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 Residents had a very comprehensive, up to date, plan of care drawn up from health assessments. Residents health care needs were met. Residents said their privacy and dignity was respected and staff were kind and polite. Medication was safely stored and administered with records kept. Quality in this outcome area is excellent. This judgement has been made using available evidence including a visit to the service EVIDENCE: Residents had a very comprehensive plan of care documented which included all activities of daily living. One file seen did not have fully completed documentation present, which led to an incomplete picture of the resident’s needs. All others seen had detailed actions needed by staff in order to assist and support residents to meet their needs. The care plans were drawn up from various health assessments, including pressure area risk assessments, nutritional assessments and those carried out by other agencies such as speech and language therapists. Risk assessments were present which Ifield Park DS0000014583.V313336.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 11 included the risk of falls. All documentation was very well reviewed, with changes being made with any variation in the resident’s needs. Visits to the residents from health professionals, such as doctors, occupational therapists and community nurses, were fully documented. On Woodruff Benton, the unit for residents needing nursing care, a qualified nurse was on duty at all times. They were responsible for the administration of medication on that unit. On the other units care staff, who had received training in the safe administration of medication, carried out this role. On all units the storage and disposal of medication was safe and in line with present guidance. The administration records were up to date. Handwritten changes and additions on medication administration sheets were not always signed or witnessed. For those residents wishing to self administer medication a risk assessment was in place. Residents spoken with said the staff treated them with dignity and respected their privacy. Staff were instructed on this during their induction training. Signs were used to indicate when personal care was taking place inside a bedroom or bathroom. Staff knocked on doors and waited to be invited in. The interactions between staff and residents were informal and friendly, but polite and respectful. Ifield Park DS0000014583.V313336.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 There were a large amount of social activities on offer which residents said they enjoyed. Visitors were welcomed into the home at any time. Residents could make choices and preferences which were respected. They were happy with the quality, quantity and choice of food offered. Quality in this outcome area is excellent. This judgement has been made using available evidence including a visit to the service EVIDENCE: An activities co-ordinator and three other activities assistants work in the home. A full programme of events for each month was drawn up, which met with the preferences of the residents. Those residents asked said they could choose from a good variety of activities and could join in if they wished. Staff were seen to encourage residents to socialise with each other and those from other units. The residents’ interests were explored and documented in the individual files. The spiritual and religious needs of the residents were explored and visits from various faiths were made. Visitors spoken with said they were always welcomed into the home, could visit at any reasonable time and stay as long as they wished. They said they enjoyed their visits and could see their relatives either in private or in the Ifield Park DS0000014583.V313336.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 13 communal areas. The residents’ personal relationships were documented in the plan of care. Residents spoken with said their choices and preferences around the routines in the home were respected. For some of the more dependant residents, who were unable to verbalise their choices, these could be more fully explored with relatives and documented. All residents were offered the opportunity to have the support of an advocacy service. This was documented on file. Residents were happy with the quality, quantity and choice of food offered. The meal served was appetising, tasty and nutritious. Residents said their likes and dislikes were catered for and varied meals were served to meet with the individuals choices. Residents were involved in the drawing up of menus, with meetings taking place and individual ideas sought. Staff offered discreet, unhurried assistance. Ifield Park DS0000014583.V313336.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 Residents were confident their complaints and concerns would be taken seriously and acted upon. Not all incidents of potential abuse had been correctly reported by care staff. The manager, who was unaware of this, took immediate action to rectify the issue. Quality in this outcome area is good. This judgement has been made using available evidence including a visit to the service EVIDENCE: Two complaints had been received by the home since the last inspection. These had been investigated and resolved to the satisfaction of all concerned. Residents and relatives said they could approach any member of staff to discuss any issue they were unhappy with. A formal complaints procedure was on display in the home. One allegation of abuse had been made at the home, since the last inspection. This had been correctly reported and investigated to the satisfaction of all concerned. Residents had been protected throughout the procedure. One incident of potential verbal abuse was reported in the daily notes of a resident. This had not been correctly reported or investigated. It was brought to the attention of the manager who informed the Commission, the following day, that the correct actions were being taken. Staff had received training on the protection of vulnerable adults and written procedures were present. Ifield Park DS0000014583.V313336.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 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): 19,22 and 26 The home was clean, tidy, well maintained and free from offensive odours. Equipment necessary to ensure the safety of the residents accommodated was present. Quality in this outcome area is good. This judgement has been made using available evidence including a visit to the service EVIDENCE: A tour of all three units took place. They were clean and tidy and generally free from offensive odour. This was a problem in one bedroom and was resolved immediately. All fire exits were clear and fire doors were closed or held open by a device which meets the guidance of the fire authority. The home was well maintained, with an ongoing maintenance and decoration programme in place. In Penn Court new flooring was being laid and whilst this was in progress a trip hazard of ill-fitting carpet tiles had been created. The manager stated this would be immediately made safe. The equipment necessary to meet the needs of the residents accommodated was present. Ifield Park DS0000014583.V313336.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 16 This included various hoists, bath hoists, hand rails and specialist chairs, beds and mattresses. Staff had received training in the control of infection and this had been included in detail in the induction programme in the home. Hand hygiene products were clearly available and staff were seen to use them. Ifield Park DS0000014583.V313336.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 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): The staff numbers and skill mix was suitable to meet the needs of the resident’s accommodated. Staff received appropriate training and a high proportion of them had completed or were enrolled on the NVQ training. Staff were recruited in a manner which protected the vulnerable adults in their care. Quality in this outcome area is excellent. This judgement has been made using available evidence including a visit to the service EVIDENCE: Staff were allocated to the three units of the home. A unit manager was appointed for the nursing care unit and one who oversaw the management of both the personal care units. In Woodruff Benton, the nursing care unit, a registered general nurse was on duty twenty four hours per day. The unit manager was also a registered nurse. In Penn Court and Ellwood Place appropriately trained care assistants were employed. Staff were present in each unit, in sufficient numbers to meet the needs of the residents accommodated. Staff said there was the opportunity for increased staff to be on duty, should the needs of the residents make this necessary. Staff spoke highly of the training they had received in the home. Many had achieved the NVQ level two or above with more enrolled, which would result in over 50 having gained this qualification. All mandatory training was completed by all staff and in addition more specific training for the needs of the residents accommodated. Training records were kept. Ifield Park DS0000014583.V313336.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 18 The files of two recently recruited staff members were seen. These contained all the information required to ensure the recruitment procedures protected the residents. Ifield Park DS0000014583.V313336.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 19 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 Residents and staff benefit from the home being run by an experienced manager. The quality of the service and practices is subject to audit and improvement strategies are in place. The health and safety of the residents was protected. Quality in this outcome area is excellent. This judgement has been made using available evidence including a visit to the service EVIDENCE: The home is managed by a person who has appropriate qualifications, knowledge and experience. She has completed management training and keeps up to date with nursing practices. She works closely with the responsible individual for the home. Staff spoke highly of the manager who they described as fair, approachable and supportive. Ifield Park DS0000014583.V313336.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 20 There are many and varied methods of reviewing the quality of care provided in the home. These include audits of policies and procedures and health and safety, meetings with staff and residents, monthly management meetings for all unit managers and specific consultation with residents on the running of the home for example, meals and foods. A very detailed monthly report is compiled regarding all areas of practice in the home, with improvement plans were necessary. The manager stated that no resident’s personal finances were managed by staff at the home. The advocacy service is used for any resident who does not have their own representative to assist them with their money. Health and safety audits and risk assessments for the premises and practices were present. Staff had received training in health and safety. A fire risk assessment had been completed. A monthly audit of falls in the home had been introduced and preventative measures increased as a result. Ifield Park DS0000014583.V313336.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 21 SCORING OF OUTCOMES This page summarises the assessment of the extent to which the National Minimum Standards for Care Homes for Older People have been met and uses the following scale. The scale ranges from: 4 Standard Exceeded 2 Standard Almost Met (Commendable) (Minor Shortfalls) 3 Standard Met 1 Standard Not Met (No Shortfalls) (Major Shortfalls) “X” in the standard met box denotes standard not assessed on this occasion “N/A” in the standard met box denotes standard not applicable CHOICE OF HOME Standard No Score 1 2 3 4 5 6 ENVIRONMENT Standard No Score 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 X X 3 X X X HEALTH AND PERSONAL CARE Standard No Score 7 3 8 4 9 3 10 3 11 X DAILY LIFE AND SOCIAL ACTIVITIES Standard No Score 12 4 13 3 14 3 15 3 COMPLAINTS AND PROTECTION Standard No Score 16 3 17 X 18 2 3 X X 3 X X X 3 STAFFING Standard No Score 27 3 28 3 29 3 30 4 MANAGEMENT AND ADMINISTRATION Standard No 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 Score 4 X 3 X 3 X X 3 Ifield Park DS0000014583.V313336.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 22 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 OP18 Regulation 13(6) Requirement All staff must be aware of the correct procedure for reporting any allegation of potential abuse of a resident. Timescale for action 30/11/06 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 Standard Good Practice Recommendations Ifield Park DS0000014583.V313336.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 23 Commission for Social Care Inspection Hampshire Office 4th Floor Overline House Blechynden Terrace Southampton SO15 1GW 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 Ifield Park DS0000014583.V313336.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 24 - 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!