Inspection on 20/02/08 for ILP Residential

This inspection was carried out on 20th February 2008.

CSCI found this care home to be providing an Good service.

The inspector found no outstanding requirements from the previous inspection report, but made 1 statutory requirements (actions the home must comply with) as a result of this inspection.

Other inspections for this house

ILP Residential 10/10/07

ILP Residential 23/02/07

ILP Residential 21/11/05

Similar services:

2 Perhaver Park

The Vicarage

St George`s

5 Seafield Road

Credence House

Radfords

Honeybourne House

32 Beaumont Way

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

CARE HOME ADULTS 18-65 ILP Residential 32 Shire Way Westbury Wilts BA13 3GF Lead Inspector Roy Gregory Key Unannounced Inspection 20th February 2008 09:30 ILP Residential DS0000065467.V360120.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 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 ILP Residential DS0000065467.V360120.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 Adults 18-65. They can be found at www.dh.gov.uk or obtained from The Stationery Office (TSO) PO Box 29, St Crispins, Duke Street, Norwich, NR3 1GN. Tel: 0870 600 5522. Online ordering: www.tso.co.uk/bookshop This report is a public document. Extracts may not be used or reproduced without the prior permission of the Commission for Social Care Inspection. ILP Residential DS0000065467.V360120.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 3 SERVICE INFORMATION Name of service ILP Residential Address 32 Shire Way Westbury Wilts BA13 3GF 01373 864945 01373 864945 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) Mr James Norman Lewis Mr James Norman Lewis Care Home 2 Category(ies) of Learning disability (2) registration, with number of places ILP Residential DS0000065467.V360120.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 4 SERVICE INFORMATION Conditions of registration: Date of last inspection 10th October 2007 Brief Description of the Service: ILP Residential is a private residential care home, which offers family-based care to two people with learning disabilities. The registered provider and manager is Mr James Lewis. He provides care together with Mrs Cherry Lewis, his wife. The home is a four-bedroomed terraced property on a relatively new residential development, situated within walking distance of Westbury town centre and also on a bus route. The house has three floors, which enables Mr and Mrs Lewis to have private space on the top floor. The two residents’ rooms are on the first floor, where there is also a bathroom and toilet for them to use. The ground floor has a kitchen, lounge/diner, conservatory and enclosed garden, all shared by the people living in the home, and Mr and Mrs Lewis. The fees are £510 a week. Mr and Mrs Lewis make regular trips abroad, taking people with them if they wish to go. They do not make additional charges for these holidays. ILP Residential DS0000065467.V360120.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 5 SUMMARY This is an overview of what the inspector found during the inspection. The quality rating for this service is 2 star. This means the people who use this service experience good quality outcomes. There was an unannounced visit to ILP Residential on Wednesday 20th February 2008 at 9:30 a.m. The inspector stayed at the home for three hours. During this time there was discussion, based in the sitting room, with Mr James Lewis, the proprietor and registered manager. One of the two people who live at the home was in, and he chose to be present during much of the inspection visit. There was an opportunity to meet Mrs Cherry Lewis, who helps staff the home with her husband, and also a church minister who called to visit. Following the inspection there were telephone conversations with the care managers of each of the people who live at the home, and with a close supporter of one of them. Care plans and care records were examined in respect of both the people that were living in the home. Other documentation referred to included an improvement plan completed by Mr Lewis in response to the previous inspection, and the annual quality assurance self-assessment, also completed by Mr Lewis within the time-scale requested by the Commission. What the service does well: Mr Lewis was keeping clear and objective records of people’s experiences each day. These enabled trends to be identified. When particular issues had arisen, the records showed how Mr or Mrs Lewis had identified and responded to them. It was also a way of showing choices that individuals had made. The daily care notes, together with a person’s descriptions of his daily life, reflected a full lifestyle for each of the people living in the home. People were free to leave and return to the house as they chose. There was support to people to maintain their significant relationships. People chose when to get up, go to bed, when to have a bath and what clothes to wear. Meals were decided jointly on a daily basis. They were provided to fit with people’s commitments, and taken in a family home context. Mr Lewis had installed a new hob in the kitchen to make it safer for people to participate directly in cooking. Care plans were written in person-centred terms. They cross-referred to risk assessments. People’s abilities to make their own decisions were recognised in their care plans. One of the people living in the home has been resident with Mr Lewis for many years. ILP Residential DS0000065467.V360120.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 6 He said the home provided him with a good life and he would not wish to live anywhere else, as Mr & Mrs Lewis understood him and had helped him to get on. By running a family-type home, without the need to employ additional staff, Mr & Mrs Lewis have got to know the people very well. The person spoken with expressed trust in them and liked living with them. He recognised that Mr & Mrs Lewis were providing a service, rather than just taking him into their home. The care managers of the people living in the home were very complimentary of the nature of working relationships they saw between Mr & Mrs Lewis and the people in their care. 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. The summary of this inspection report can be made available in other formats on request. ILP Residential DS0000065467.V360120.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 7 DETAILS OF INSPECTOR FINDINGS CONTENTS Choice of Home (Standards 1–5) Individual Needs and Choices (Standards 6-10) Lifestyle (Standards 11-17) Personal and Healthcare Support (Standards 18-21) Concerns, Complaints and Protection (Standards 22-23) Environment (Standards 24-30) Staffing (Standards 31-36) Conduct and Management of the Home (Standards 37 – 43) Scoring of Outcomes Statutory Requirements Identified During the Inspection ILP Residential DS0000065467.V360120.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 8 Choice of Home The intended outcomes for Standards 1 – 5 are: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Prospective service users have the information they need to make an informed choice about where to live. Prospective users’ individual aspirations and needs are assessed. Prospective service users know that the home that they will choose will meet their needs and aspirations. Prospective service users have an opportunity to visit and to “test drive” the home. Each service user has an individual written contract or statement of terms and conditions with the home. The Commission consider Standard 2 the key standard to be inspected. JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for the following standard(s): 1, 2 & 4. Quality in this outcome area is good. This judgement has been made using available evidence including a visit to this service. People’s needs were assessed so that their needs could be met. People were provided with information, and had the opportunity to visit the home and stay before they moved in, so that they knew the home would be able to meet their needs. EVIDENCE: One of the people living in the home has been resident with Mr Lewis for many years. He said the home provided him with a good life and he would not wish to live anywhere else, as Mr & Mrs Lewis understood him and had helped him to get on. The other person had stayed as a weekend guest a few times in 2007 and had also joined Mr & Mrs Lewis and the long-term resident on one of their trips to the Philippines in June and July 2007. As a result of relationships formed, and a good match between the placement and the person’s current education and training arrangements, their care manager assessed the placement as appropriate to meet longer-term needs. Mr Lewis had assessed that the home could meet the person’s needs and there was a contract in place with the person’s funding authority. The care manager considered the assessment and pre-placement process to have been person-centred and effective. ILP Residential DS0000065467.V360120.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 9 A previous carer of the person confirmed they had attended two meetings at the home about the placement. People had an easy-read service users’ guide that described the facilities they could expect. ILP Residential DS0000065467.V360120.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 10 Individual Needs and Choices The intended outcomes for Standards 6 – 10 are: 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. Service users know their assessed and changing needs and personal goals are reflected in their individual Plan. Service users make decisions about their lives with assistance as needed. Service users are consulted on, and participate in, all aspects of life in the home. Service users are supported to take risks as part of an independent lifestyle. Service users know that information about them is handled appropriately, and that their confidences are kept. The Commission considers Standards 6, 7 and 9 the key standards to be inspected. JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for the following standard(s): 6, 7 & 9. Quality in this outcome area is good. This judgement has been made using available evidence including a visit to this service. People’s abilities, needs and goals were reflected in their individual plans. People made decisions about their lives with assistance as needed. People were supported to take risks and given opportunities for independence. EVIDENCE: People had care plans, known within the home as “reviews”. They had a baseline description of needs and how these had shown change over the preceding six months. There were headings for health needs, activities and skills. They ended with setting goals and review of progress on previous goals. Mr Lewis said he used the social worker’s care plan as a guide to areas needing attention, combined with experience of the person in the home, and what the person said they wanted to achieve. In many areas of life, people’s abilities to make their own decisions were recognised. Review plans were written in person-centred terms. ILP Residential DS0000065467.V360120.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 11 They cross-referred to risk assessments. In a conversation with both Mr Lewis and a person in the home, it was evident the latter understood their risk assessments and the reasons for them, and had previously discussed them with Mr Lewis. The risk assessment approach showed that people’s everyday life was enhanced by consideration of how to make different activities safe, for example making drinks or going alone into town. Plans were reviewed regularly. For one person, some issues recognised at review in January 2008 had led to a referral for assistance from a behaviour nurse, with a further review set for May 2008. Mr Lewis was keeping clear and objective records of people’s experiences each day. These enabled trends to be identified. When particular issues had arisen, the records showed how Mr or Mrs Lewis had identified and responded to them. This met a requirement set at the previous inspection, that records of behaviours that challenge must be specific about their time and context. The records also demonstrated choices that individuals had made. ILP Residential DS0000065467.V360120.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 12 Lifestyle The intended outcomes for Standards 11 - 17 are: 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. Service users have opportunities for personal development. Service users are able to take part in age, peer and culturally appropriate activities. Service users are part of the local community. Service users engage in appropriate leisure activities. Service users have appropriate personal, family and sexual relationships. Service users’ rights are respected and responsibilities recognised in their daily lives. Service users are offered a healthy diet and enjoy their meals and mealtimes. The Commission considers Standards 12, 13, 15, 16 and 17 the key standards to be inspected. JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for the following standard(s): 11 – 17. Quality in this outcome area is excellent. This judgement has been made using available evidence including a visit to this service. People had a range of activities and developmental opportunities, and had access to their local community. They were able to maintain and develop appropriate relationships with family and friends. People’s rights were respected and their responsibilities were recognised in their daily lives. People were offered a healthy diet and enjoyed their meals. EVIDENCE: Both people living in the home were attending college courses in Trowbridge. For one person this was not a full-time commitment. He was receiving active help from a work adviser. They had established an aim of progressing from simple to longer and more complex jobs. Mr Lewis was able to support this through contacts he had in voluntary and paid work. Mr Lewis was also undertaking a college course himself, in imparting information to others. ILP Residential DS0000065467.V360120.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 13 This enabled him to present a role model and to support the people’s respective learning. The daily care notes reflected a full lifestyle for each of the people living in the home. It could be seen that people were free to leave and return to the house as they chose. There was some written messaging between the home and people’s college tutors. There was support to people to maintain their significant relationships. A person significant to one of the people living in the home said they had arranged to meet with Mr Lewis to discuss how they will manage communication between them in the future, to best meet the person’s needs. Meals were provided to fit with people’s commitments and taken in a family home context. Mr Lewis had installed a new hob in the kitchen to make it safer for people to participate directly in cooking. Meals were decided jointly on a daily basis and Mr Lewis kept a record of all meals served. This showed that there was a varied and balanced diet. People made choices between sharing the communal rooms downstairs and spending time in their bedrooms. One person had an active religious interest. A church minister called socially during the inspection visit. They spoke of the home’s support to the person to participate in the church community. A feature of the home is that Mr and Mrs Lewis travel extensively, particularly to the Philippines, and take the people from the home with them. People take spending money, but do not pay for travel or keep, as Mr Lewis regards this as an element in what the home provides to people. He saw travel as part of the promotion of stimulation and learning opportunities by the service. He and Mrs Lewis have a second home in the Philippines. The person who has lived with them long-term regarded that home as an extension of his home with Mr and Mrs Lewis, and said he loved the travelling to different places also. There was evidence that people’s own suggestions of places to visit and stay had also been facilitated. In line with a recommendation from the previous inspection, Mr Lewis had devised a form that set out the details of any proposed trip and gave a clear opportunity for a person or their representative to opt out. The person who was home during the inspection visit chose to sit in on much of the discussion between the inspector and Mr Lewis. He was clearly accustomed to being fully included in the everyday life of the home and contributing as he wished. People took responsibility for how they kept their rooms. They were expected to help with tasks such as clearing tables. The person spoken with said he was keen to continue to learn skills, with a view to living in a more independent way at some time in the future. ILP Residential DS0000065467.V360120.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 14 Personal and Healthcare Support The intended outcomes for Standards 18 - 21 are: 18. 19. 20. 21. Service users receive personal support in the way they prefer and require. Service users’ physical and emotional health needs are met. Service users retain, administer and control their own medication where appropriate, and are protected by the home’s policies and procedures for dealing with medicines. The ageing, illness and death of a service user are handled with respect and as the individual would wish. The Commission considers Standards 18, 19, and 20 the key standards to be inspected. JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for the following standard(s): 18, 19 & 20. Quality in this outcome area is good. This judgement has been made using available evidence including a visit to this service. People were largely independent and received support in ways they preferred. Their physical and emotional health needs were met. People were protected by the home’s policies and practices about medication. EVIDENCE: People did not require assistance with personal care apart from some prompting as described in their care plans. People chose when to get up, go to bed, when to have a bath and what clothes to wear. Routines within the home were flexible and fitted in with their activities. Care plans established agreed goals that included personal routines. The care manager for one of the people saw Mr Lewis as very effective in supporting the person’s self-care, ensuring good outcomes without undermining the person’s own abilities. There was provision to ensure routine dental and optical appointments were kept. People could access the local doctors’ surgery as they needed to. For one person there was a record of liaison between the home and the person’s doctor about ceasing use of a medication related to behaviour issues. ILP Residential DS0000065467.V360120.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 15 This had been agreed, and the evidence was that alternative strategies were proving successful. Neither person in the home was receiving any regular medication. There were good records of when people had received “homely” cold remedies, and for one person, a course of prescribed antibiotic treatment. Mr and Mrs Lewis completed a distance-learning course on safe medications practice in care homes during 2007. ILP Residential DS0000065467.V360120.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 16 Concerns, Complaints and Protection The intended outcomes for Standards 22 – 23 are: 22. 23. Service users feel their views are listened to and acted on. Service users are protected from abuse, neglect and self-harm. The Commission considers Standards 22, and 23 the key standards to be inspected. JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for the following standard(s): Quality in this outcome area is good. This judgement has been made using available evidence including a visit to this service. People could be confident that complaints would be listened to and acted upon. People were protected from abuse, neglect and self-harm. EVIDENCE: There was an easy to read complaints procedure and each person had a copy in their bedroom. A person in the home said he could not read the words but understood the pictures. He could not think of any circumstances in which he would want to complain about the home. He had been involved with an advocacy group, through which he had successfully addressed a complaint about a statutory service in the past. Previous inspection reports noted that relatives had also been given copies of the home’s complaints procedure. There had been no complaints since the last inspection. Mrs Lewis works part-time at a care home for older people, where she had undertaken training in abuse awareness in September 2007. Mr Lewis was to cover this training in working towards National Vocational Qualification (NVQ) level 4 in care, later in 2008. A copy of the “No Secrets” brief guidance to local inter-agency safeguarding procedures was kept readily available in the entrance hall. As agreed at the previous inspection, Mr Lewis had ceased to be appointee of one of the people living in the home. A relative of the person had taken over this responsibility. ILP Residential DS0000065467.V360120.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 17 Mr Lewis had co-operated with relevant authorities over concerns that had arisen about living arrangements for a person that formerly lived at the home. His practices, notably in respect of record keeping and management decisions, had improved sufficiently to ensure people’s safety. ILP Residential DS0000065467.V360120.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 18 Environment The intended outcomes for Standards 24 – 30 are: 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. Service users live in a homely, comfortable and safe environment. Service users’ bedrooms suit their needs and lifestyles. Service users’ bedrooms promote their independence. Service users’ toilets and bathrooms provide sufficient privacy and meet their individual needs. Shared spaces complement and supplement service users’ individual rooms. Service users have the specialist equipment they require to maximise their independence. The home is clean and hygienic. The Commission considers Standards 24, and 30 the key standards to be inspected. JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for the following standard(s): 24, 28 & 30. Quality in this outcome area is excellent. This judgement has been made using available evidence including a visit to this service. People lived in a comfortable, clean and safe environment, suitable to their needs. The shared spaces complemented people’s rooms. The home was clean and hygienic. EVIDENCE: The home is no different to neighbouring properties. There had been some redecoration since the previous inspection. Some patio doors had been replaced by a different design because one of the people in the home had difficulty using the previous ones. All of the downstairs accommodation was homely in character and very clean. The bedrooms and bathroom of the people living there were seen at previous inspections. The person that was spoken with said his bedroom was unchanged. He was very pleased with his accommodation. ILP Residential DS0000065467.V360120.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 19 Staffing The intended outcomes for Standards 31 – 36 are: 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. Service users benefit from clarity of staff roles and responsibilities. Service users are supported by competent and qualified staff. Service users are supported by an effective staff team. Service users are supported and protected by the home’s recruitment policy and practices. Service users’ individual and joint needs are met by appropriately trained staff. Service users benefit from well supported and supervised staff. The Commission considers Standards 32, 34 and 35 the key standards to be inspected. JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for the following standard(s): 32 – 35. Quality in this outcome area is good. This judgement has been made using available evidence including a visit to this service. People were supported and cared for by people who were well known to them, who were competent and received training relevant to people’s needs. Recruitment practices ensured that people were protected from being cared for by unsuitable volunteers. EVIDENCE: Mr & Mrs Lewis may be regarded as an “effective staff team” in that between them they are constantly available to the people in the home. By running a family-type home, without the need to employ additional staff, they have got to know the people very well. The person spoken with expressed trust in Mr & Mrs Lewis and liked living with them. He recognised that Mr & Mrs Lewis were providing a service, rather than just taking him into their home. Mr & Mrs Lewis demonstrated sensitive and appropriate interactions with the person. Mr Lewis was keeping a staff application form on his IT system in case of any change of circumstances, although he had no plans to recruit staff for the foreseeable future. He was, however, hoping to recruit a befriending volunteer for one of the people in the home. ILP Residential DS0000065467.V360120.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 20 One person had expressed an interest in this. Mr Lewis had arranged for them to obtain a Criminal Records Bureau (CRB) disclosure. He said he would not progress their application until the disclosure had been received. He would then require a completed application form, would interview and take up references, in line with a requirement from the previous inspection emphasising the necessity to comply with recognised safety checks for any appointment. Owing to the nature of the intended role, the person to benefit from any appointment was to be fully included in the decision making process. Mr Lewis has NVQ level 3 in care (supported living). Mrs Lewis has a nursing qualification from the Philippines. She is interested in gaining NVQ in care to level 2 or 3. Mr Lewis said he would have to renew his certification in emergency first aid, and food hygiene, before embarking on NVQ level 4 later in 2008. ILP Residential DS0000065467.V360120.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 21 Conduct and Management of the Home The intended outcomes for Standards 37 – 43 are: 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. Service users benefit from a well run home. Service users benefit from the ethos, leadership and management approach of the home. Service users are confident their views underpin all self-monitoring, review and development by the home. Service users’ rights and best interests are safeguarded by the home’s policies and procedures. Service users’ rights and best interests are safeguarded by the home’s record keeping policies and procedures. The health, safety and welfare of service users are promoted and protected. Service users benefit from competent and accountable management of the service. The Commission considers Standards 37, 39, and 42 the key standards to be inspected. JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for the following standard(s): 37, 39 & 42. Quality in this outcome area is good. This judgement has been made using available evidence including a visit to this service. People benefited from living in a family home, well run on a daily basis. The manager has made arrangements to achieve the recognised level of qualification. People were consulted in all aspects of their lives and their families’ views had also been obtained. People’s health and safety were promoted and protected. EVIDENCE: Mr Lewis was undertaking a City & Guilds course at college as part of a plan agreed with tutors to get ready for working to NVQ level 4 in care later in 2008. He agreed with college staff that his NVQ level 3, and subsequent qualifications to assess NVQ candidates, are now dated (obtained in 1995 & 1996). ILP Residential DS0000065467.V360120.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 22 After the previous inspection, Mr Lewis was required to submit an improvement plan to the Commission. This was because some of his management decisions in 2007 were not in line with the Care Homes Regulations 2001, or the terms of his registration. Mr Lewis submitted a plan within the required time and has shown commitment to improving his practice as a registered manager. In the annual quality assurance self-assessment, Mr Lewis stated: “we have continued training in procedures, developed a better understanding of the CSCI and its role and further learned to ask for support earlier and not to soldier on”. There was evidence at previous inspections that Mr Lewis seeks the views of people in the home, their relatives and other representatives, to inform annual business development planning. Additionally, by the nature of the service, he obtained people’s views on a daily basis. The person spoken with considered he was consulted and that Mr Lewis took people’s views and wishes into account. There was evidence of forward planning. For example, the changes to the kitchen had been planned in the light of identifying a need to improve people’s access, which the people had commented on themselves. The changes were implemented as planned. Mr Lewis had records of weekly health and safety checks, and nightly fire safety checks. He completed a certificated course in fire risk assessment. The home had fire and carbon monoxide detectors. The kitchen notice board had information about kitchen safety. There was a food hygiene policy that covered purchase and storage of food. Evidence of insurance arrangements for the home was seen at the previous inspection. ILP Residential DS0000065467.V360120.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 23 SCORING OF OUTCOMES This page summarises the assessment of the extent to which the National Minimum Standards for Care Homes for Adults 18-65 have been met and uses the following scale. The scale ranges from: 4 Standard Exceeded 2 Standard Almost Met (Commendable) (Minor Shortfalls) 3 Standard Met 1 Standard Not Met (No Shortfalls) (Major Shortfalls) “X” in the standard met box denotes standard not assessed on this occasion “N/A” in the standard met box denotes standard not applicable CHOICE OF HOME Standard No Score 1 3 2 3 3 X 4 3 5 X INDIVIDUAL NEEDS AND CHOICES Standard No 6 7 8 9 10 Score CONCERNS AND COMPLAINTS Standard No Score 22 3 23 3 ENVIRONMENT Standard No Score 24 4 25 X 26 X 27 X 28 3 29 X 30 4 STAFFING Standard No Score 31 X 32 3 33 3 34 3 35 3 36 N/A CONDUCT AND MANAGEMENT OF THE HOME Standard No 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 Score 3 3 X 3 X LIFESTYLES Standard No Score 11 4 12 4 13 4 14 4 15 4 16 4 17 4 PERSONAL AND HEALTHCARE SUPPORT Standard No 18 19 20 21 Score 3 3 3 X 2 X 3 X X 3 X ILP Residential DS0000065467.V360120.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 24 Are there any outstanding requirements from the last inspection? NO STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS This section sets out the actions, which must be taken so that the registered person/s meets the Care Standards Act 2000, Care Homes Regulations 2001 and the National Minimum Standards. The Registered Provider(s) must comply with the given timescales. No. 1. Standard YA37 Regulation Requirement Timescale for action 31/08/08 9 (2)(b)(i) The registered manager must provide evidence or registration for training to National Vocational Qualification in care, level 4. 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 ILP Residential DS0000065467.V360120.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 25 Commission for Social Care Inspection South West Colston 33 33 Colston Avenue Bristol BS1 4UA National Enquiry Line: Telephone: 0845 015 0120 or 0191 233 3323 Textphone: 0845 015 2255 or 0191 233 3588 Email: enquiries@csci.gsi.gov.uk Web: www.csci.org.uk © This report is copyright Commission for Social Care Inspection (CSCI) and may only be used in its entirety. Extracts may not be used or reproduced without the express permission of CSCI ILP Residential DS0000065467.V360120.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!