CARE HOME ADULTS 18-65
ILP Residential 32 Shire Way Westbury Wilts BA13 3GF Lead Inspector
Elaine Barber Unannounced Inspection 23 February 2007 14:55
rd DS0000065467.V325049.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 DS0000065467.V325049.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. DS0000065467.V325049.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 DS0000065467.V325049.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 4 SERVICE INFORMATION
Conditions of registration: Date of last inspection 21st November 2005 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 Lewis. The home is a four bedroom terraced property, which is situated within walking distance of all the facilities of the market town of Westbury. Each person has their own bedroom on the first floor. The fees are £500 a week. DS0000065467.V325049.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 5 SUMMARY
This is an overview of what the inspector found during the inspection. This inspection included an unannounced visit to the home on 23rd February 2007 in the afternoon. During the visit information was gathered using: • • • • Observation Discussion with the two people who lived in the home Discussion with the manager Reading records including care records. The two people who lived in the home were involved in all aspects of the inspection. The judgements contained in this report have been made from all this evidence gathered during the inspection visit. What the service does well: One person had moved into the home recently. They said that they had visited the home several times before they moved in. People had the opportunity to visit the home and stay overnight so that they knew the home would be able to meet their needs. The manager had conducted an assessment of this person’s needs before they moved in and had obtained a copy of their care management assessment. The other person had lived in the home several years and their needs had been assessed over time. People’s needs were assessed so that these needs could be met. People had their abilities, needs and goals reflected in their individual plans to ensure that these needs would be met. Each person had a care plan and these were revised about every six months. The plans included all aspects of personal, health and social care. People were supported to take risks and given opportunities for independence. They went out independently and managed their own money. They made decisions about their lives with assistance as needed. People were provided with a range of activities and opportunities, offering access to their local community. Each person had a day time activity of their choice. They used the community facilities such as the shops, cafes and church. People had access to the community on a daily basis.
DS0000065467.V325049.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 6 People were able to maintain and develop appropriate relationships with family and friends. They had regular visits to friends and relatives and travelled there independently. Routines were flexible and fitted in with people’s activities. People participated in the household chores. Each person had their own room and chose to spend time in the privacy of their room or in company in the communal areas. People’s rights were respected and their responsibilities were recognised in their daily lives. People said that they chose their meals and enjoyed the food. People were offered a healthy diet. People were generally independent with personal care and received support in ways they preferred. People’s healthcare needs were included in their personal plans. Each person was registered with a GP and they saw other health professionals including a dentist and optician. People’s physical and emotional health needs were met. The manager supported one person to take their medication. There were appropriate arrangements for the storage, administration and recording of medication and people were protected by the home’s policies and practices. There was a complaints procedure and the people who lived in the home knew how to make a complaint. People’s views were listened to and acted upon. There were policies and procedures about protection from abuse. People knew how to complain if they were subject to abuse. People were protected from abuse, neglect and self harm. The accommodation was cosy with a lounge dining room, conservatory and kitchen on the ground floor. People lived in a comfortable, clean and safe environment, suitable to their needs. The shared spaces complemented people’s rooms. Each person had a single room on the first floor. These were individually decorated and furnished and people had brought personal effects such as photographs and music systems. People’s bedrooms suited their needs and lifestyles. There was a toilet on the ground floor and a bathroom on the first floor next to the bedrooms. These provided suitable facilities to ensure privacy and meet people’s needs. There was a washing machine in a utility room under the stairs and people could do their own laundry. The accommodation was tidy and well maintained. The home was clean and hygienic. DS0000065467.V325049.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 7 The home offered family based care and support and was staffed by the owners most of the time. This ensured that people were supported and cared for by people who were well known to them. Two members of staff had been recruited to work with the people when they were on holiday in the Philippines. All the appropriate recruitment checks had been completed for these two members of staff. Robust recruitment practices had been established to ensure that people were protected from being cared for by unsuitable staff. Both people who lived in the home said that they were happy with the service. They were benefiting from living in a well run, family home. The owners circulated questionnaires to the people who lived in the home their relatives and visitors about every six months. The findings were written up into a report and everybody involved received a copy. This ensured that people were fully consulted in all aspects of their lives and their families’ views had also been obtained. Areas for development were identified. There were health and safety policies and procedures. The owners had a common sense approach to health and safety as the home was a family home. There were the usual domestic health and safety measures including smoke alarms, a fire extinguisher, a fire blanket, servicing of the boiler and electrical checks. People’s health, safety and welfare were promoted and protected. What has improved since the last inspection? What they could do better:
One person was learning a new bus route and the manager had thought through the associated risks and measures to reduce risk. However, it would DS0000065467.V325049.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 8 be good practice to record these risk assessments to ensure all people who work with this person are aware of the risks and they are protected. 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. DS0000065467.V325049.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 9 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 DS0000065467.V325049.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 10 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): 2, 3, 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 these needs could be met. People 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 new person had moved into the home since the last inspection. The person said that they had visited several times before they moved into the home. They said that they got to know the home before they moved in and they liked staying there. They also got to know the other person. They moved in around July 2006. The manager reported that a community care assessment was completed for this person before they moved into the home. However a copy had not been sent to the home until January 2007. Some review notes were available from a review in October 2006. The owner conducted his own assessment of the person’s needs during the introductory visits. DS0000065467.V325049.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 11 The other person had lived in the home for several years and their needs had been assessed over time. DS0000065467.V325049.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 12 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 excellent. This judgement has been made using available evidence including a visit to this service. People had their abilities, needs and goals 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: Each person had a care plan and these were revised about every six months. People were encouraged, supported and enabled to achieve their greatest level of independence and control over their lives, which included the right to make their own choices and decisions within a supportive environment. There was evidence to support this in their care plans. People travelled to college on the bus independently and went into town independently. They made decisions
DS0000065467.V325049.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 13 about their day to day activities. People had been fully involved in a local advocacy group. People had their own building society books and their personal allowances were paid directly into their accounts. People made any withdrawals of money required independently. The person who moved in most recently had risk assessments for going into town and using the bus independently. The manager said that he conducted written risk assessments for the other person when they first moved into the home. However, the manager said that he now knew these person’s needs and associated risks so well that he had not produced any new written risk assessments. This person was learning a new bus route with the support of the manager who had put in measures to reduce risks. These included following the bus in their vehicle while the person was learning the route to ensure the person arrived at the right place. Although he had assessed the risks of the person travelling independently he had not recorded them. It would be good practice to do so. DS0000065467.V325049.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 14 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): 12, 13, 15, 16, 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 opportunities, and had access to their local community. People 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. DS0000065467.V325049.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 15 EVIDENCE: People were supported to make appropriate arrangements to meet their personal, religious and cultural needs. Opportunities were available to learn independent living skills, such as use of local transport, withdrawing money out of their building society books, going shopping, cooking and cleaning. People were confident in their communication and were involved in the inspection process by expressing their opinions about the care provided and the life style the home offered them. Opportunities and support were available for people to fulfil their spiritual needs and both attended a church group every other Tuesday evening. One person attended church every Sunday while the other chose not to attend. People preferred to be involved in community-based activities rather than attending a day service. One person was involved in a local advocacy group, Wiltshire People First, and attended various conferences and workshops organised by it. This person attended various courses at Trowbridge college and travelled there independently on the bus. The other person attended a full time course at the college and also travelled there by bus. People were encouraged to develop and maintain their independence as much as possible and had developed their own friendships within the community. One person visited their family several times a week and visited a friend in Warminster. The other person also visited their family. One person had a mobile phone and phone card, which they could use when out, should they need to. People used public transport, and had learned various bus routes and continued to learn new ones. Both people had their own bus passes. On the day of inspection one person had been learning a new bus route to Bath with the support of the manager. They were planning to start some voluntary work at the dog’s home and wanted to travel there independently. People were encouraged and supported to pursue their own interests and hobbies. They said that they enjoyed fishing and visited Weymouth in the summer to fish. They both attended the Gateway club one a week. People talked about their holidays and said that they had recently been to Hong Kong and the Philippines and to Butlins. They said that they had enjoyed their holidays and had several holidays each year. The home provided a flexible environment with the minimum of rules, which gave people independence and choice within a safe environment. People could choose how and where to spend their time and come and go as they wished. They understood the need to inform the manager where they are going and what time they intended to return for safety reasons. They went out independently to the shops and library in Westbury and travelled independently to college and to meet family members. People were involved in the routines of the home and undertook various tasks like laundry and
DS0000065467.V325049.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 16 cleaning. Although people’s bedrooms did not have locks fitted to them, the manager treated these rooms as their own private space. People said that they enjoyed the food. They said that they chose their meals and were asked what they wanted to eat. The manager said that they had tried four week menu planning but this was not flexible enough. They tended to choose their meals on the day. A record was made of each meal provided and these records showed that there was a varied and balanced diet. People were offered opportunities to be involved in meal preparation. The manager was developing a separate training kitchen to increase the opportunities. DS0000065467.V325049.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 17 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 generally independent and received support in ways they preferred. People’s 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 the occasional 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. DS0000065467.V325049.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 18 Both people were registered with the local surgery and would attend any appointments at the practice. One person had hurt their finger and planned to visit the GP later in the day with the manager’s support. People also saw the optician and dentist. One person was not on any prescribed medication. The other person took their own medication which was dispensed in a blister pack. The manager observed when they took their medication and made a record. The records were appropriately maintained. DS0000065467.V325049.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 19 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): 22, 23 Quality in this outcome area is good. This judgement has been made using available evidence including a visit to this service. People were confident that their views were 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. Relatives had also been given a copy. There had been no complaints since the last inspection. Both people said that they knew how to make a complaint. They said that they would tell their social worker or advocate. There was a prevention of abuse policy and procedure. There was information about ‘No secrets’ and the local multi-agency procedures. The manager said that they had received training about child protection and knew about the referral points for allegations about abuse of adults. They said that if there was an allegation they would refer to the booklet about the multi-agency procedures for investigating allegations. Both people said that they knew how to complain if they were subject to abuse. There had been no allegations. The manager had no involvement with people’s finances. They managed their own money and had their own bank accounts. They paid their fees by cheque.
DS0000065467.V325049.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 20 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, 25, 26, 27, 28, 30 Quality in this outcome area is good. 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. People’s bedrooms suited their needs and lifestyles. There were sufficient toilet and bathroom facilities to ensure privacy and meet people’s needs. The shared spaces complemented people’s rooms. The home was clean and hygienic. DS0000065467.V325049.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 21 EVIDENCE: The home was a terraced town house on a new development near the centre of Westbury. It was in keeping with other properties in the street and provided easy access to local amenities. The house was furnished in a homely style and was well maintained and decorated. There was suitable heating, lighting and ventilation. Each person had their own bedroom on the first floor. These were individually decorated and furnished. People also displayed their personal items such as photographs and pictures and they also have their own televisions and music centres. One person had fitted wardrobes in their room and the manager planned to install fitted wardrobes in the other person’s room and rearrange the furniture to make it more accessible. People could entertain visitors in the privacy of their bedrooms or they could use the communal area available. The people said that they liked their rooms. There were suitable bath and toilet facilities including a toilet on the ground floor and a bathroom with a toilet and wash hand basin on the first floor. There was a spacious lounge/dining room, which was comfortably furnished and decorated. The home also had a domestic style kitchen, which was maintained to a good and hygienic standard. The owner had recently put up a conservatory at the back of the house. There was an enclosed and well maintained rear garden, which could be used by the people who lived in the home, weather permitting. The home was maintained to a good standard and was clean, tidy and comfortable. The laundry facilities were in a utility room under the stairs and met the needs of the home. People were involved in doing their own laundry although ironing was kept to a minimum. DS0000065467.V325049.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 22 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, 34, 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. Robust recruitment practices had been established to ensure that people were protected from being cared for by unsuitable staff. EVIDENCE: Mr and Mrs Lewis provided most of the staffing hours during the day and slept in at night. The home provided family based care and support which gave good continuity. The people who lived in the home appeared to be happy and at ease in their environment. The people stated that they were very happy living in the home and with the services provided by Mr and Mrs Lewis. The owners had employed two members of staff in the Philippines, for when the people who lived in the home visit there on holiday. The two staff were staying in the home at the time of the inspection. Both staff had completed a course about care.
DS0000065467.V325049.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 23 Mr Lewis had completed recruitment checks for these two members of staff when they started work in the Philippines. He had completed new employment checks for these two people as they were coming to this country for a short while. Each member of staff had completed an application form with a declaration that they had no offences and a declaration that they were physically and mentally fit. New Criminal Records Bureau (CRB) and Protection of Vulnerable Adults (POVA) checks had been obtained as well as two written references and a medical report for each staff member. Each member of staff also had a police clearance check from the Philippines. A requirement was made at the previous inspection that any employment gaps are fully investigated and recorded. This had been addressed and the new employment histories contained no gaps. DS0000065467.V325049.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 24 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 excellent. This judgement has been made using available evidence including a visit to this service. People benefited from living in a well run, family home. People were fully consulted in all aspects of their lives and their families’ views had also been obtained. People’s health, safety and welfare were promoted and protected. DS0000065467.V325049.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 25 EVIDENCE: Mr Lewis had cared for one of the people who lived in the home for the last eleven years and therefore had a number of years experience of working with people with learning disabilities. He understood this person’s needs very well. Mr Lewis has a Diploma in Education Welfare, is an NVQ Assessor and has successfully completed the Masters in Business Management. The home was small and there was close interaction between Mr and Mrs Lewis and the people who lived there. During the inspection an open, positive and inclusive approach was very evident where people were kept informed and were fully involved in all aspects of the running of the home. Through discussion Mr Lewis demonstrated that he promoted people’s rights, independence and choice. His approach to the running of the home produced some excellent outcomes for people in relation to their individual needs and choices and lifestyle. Mr Lewis obtained people’s views on a daily basis. He had also developed questionnaires, which had been completed by the people who lived in the home, their families and visitors. He planned to repeat this on a six monthly basis to coincide with people’s reviews. The results of these questionnaires were available to all who took part in the survey and a copy was also provided to the Commission for Social Care Inspection. The recent results completed in September 2006 continued to confirm overall satisfaction. Mr Lewis had identified areas for service improvement including developing extra space for the people who lived in the home to have a training kitchen, a dining roomconservatory and adding a breakfast bar to the kitchen. The new conservatory had been added and new units had been installed as part of the training kitchen. A table area had been provided in the kitchen. Mr Lewis and Mrs Lewis continued to maintain a safe environment by applying a common sense approach. Policies and procedures regarding health and safety had been established. Mr and Mrs Lewis had information about all mandatory training including updates in relation to fire, basic food hygiene, health and safety and first aid. Mrs Lewis had training in first aid and had recently registered with Salisbury college to undertake a National Vocational Qualification in kitchen management. The environmental health officer had visited in June 2006 and was satisfied with the food safety measures. The property was relatively new and complied with all the necessary fire precautions, which included the fitting of self closing fire doors, mains linked smoke detectors to the hallway and landing, battery operated emergency lights and the installation of a fire blanket and extinguisher in the kitchen. A complete electrical check was carried out in October 2005. The boiler had been serviced three weeks previously. Mr Lewis had fitted an additional rail to the staircase. DS0000065467.V325049.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 26 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 X 2 3 3 3 4 X 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 3 25 3 26 3 27 3 28 3 29 X 30 3 4 X 4 X 3 LIFESTYLES Standard No Score 11 X 12 4 13 4 14 X 15 4 16 4 17 STAFFING Standard No Score 31 x 32 3 33 x 34 3 35 3 36 x CONDUCT AND MANAGEMENT OF THE HOME Standard No 37 38 39 40 41 42 43
DS0000065467.V325049.R01.S.doc 4 Score PERSONAL AND HEALTHCARE SUPPORT Standard No 18 19 20 21 Score 3 3 3 X 4 X 4 X X 3 x
Version 5.2 Page 27 No Are there any outstanding requirements from the last inspection? STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS This section sets out the actions, which must be taken so that the registered person/s meets the Care Standards Act 2000, Care Homes Regulations 2001 and the National Minimum Standards. The Registered Provider(s) must comply with the given timescales. No. Standard Regulation Requirement Timescale for action 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. Refer to Standard YA9 Good Practice Recommendations When people are engaged in activities to promote their independence, that may pose a risk, a record should be made of the assessed risks and control measures. DS0000065467.V325049.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 28 Commission for Social Care Inspection Chippenham Area Office Avonbridge House Bath Road Chippenham SN15 2BB 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 DS0000065467.V325049.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 29 - 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!
