Inspection on 21/08/07 for Israel Sieff Court

This inspection was carried out on 21st August 2007.

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

Israel Sieff Court 09/07/09

Israel Sieff Court 12/02/07

Israel Sieff Court 28/02/06

Israel Sieff Court 01/09/05

Israel Sieff Court 11/03/05

Israel Sieff Court 11/11/04

Israel Sieff Court 16/03/04

Israel Sieff Court 14/10/03

Similar services:

Chirnside House

Keer Sands Residential Home

Ruskin Lodge

Bushell House

Langrigg House

Parkside

Dystlegh Grange

Thornton Lodge

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

CARE HOMES FOR OLDER PEOPLE Israel Sieff Court 7a Bennett Road Crumpsall Manchester M8 8DU Lead Inspector Sue Jennings Unannounced Inspection 21st August 2007 10:00 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 Israel Sieff Court DS0000021553.V348393.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. Israel Sieff Court DS0000021553.V348393.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 3 SERVICE INFORMATION Name of service Israel Sieff Court Address 7a Bennett Road Crumpsall Manchester M8 8DU 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) 0161 740 8597 0161 795 3075 sharon.blackwell@anchor.org Anchor Trust Sharon Bollesty Care Home 34 Category(ies) of Old age, not falling within any other category registration, with number (34) of places Israel Sieff Court DS0000021553.V348393.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 4 SERVICE INFORMATION Conditions of registration: Date of last inspection 12th February 2007 Brief Description of the Service: Israel Sieff is a purpose built care home that provides accommodation and personal care for 34 elderly residents. It is one of a number of homes owned by Anchor Homes, which form part of Anchor Trust, a registered charity. The property has three floors, and bedrooms are located on each of the floors. All the accommodation is offered in single rooms, which provide en-suite facilities. The home is situated in a residential street in the Crumpsall area of Manchester, about three miles from the city centre. The Crumpsall Metro Station and public transport links are all within easy walking distance. Israel Sieff Court DS0000021553.V348393.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 5 SUMMARY This is an overview of what the inspector found during the inspection. This visit was undertaken as part of a key inspection, which includes an analysis of any information received by us (the Commission for Social Care Inspection) in relation to this home prior to the site visit. The visit was unannounced and took place over the course of 7 hours on Tuesday 21st August 2007. During the course of the site visit we spent time talking to the residents, manager, deputy manager, senior carer, the administrator and 4 members of staff to find out their views of the home. CSCI questionnaires were sent to residents and relatives and there was a good response received. Time was spent examining maintenance records and the residents and staff files. A tour of the building was also carried out. There was evidence to show that the manager and staff continued to work hard to develop and improve the service. Fees at the home range from £378.84 to £420.00 per week. What the service does well: Comprehensive information about the home was given to people considering moving in. This was available with a DVD and could be translated into other languages or provided on audiotape on request. People thinking about moving in were invited to visit and spend time with an allocated member of staff, the residents and to enjoy a meal. Residents said “I wouldn’t want to live at home now I have company here”, “they look after me well” and “the staff are very helpful”. Staff reported that the management team were “very supportive and very helpful”. Residents said the food is “very tasty and there is always a choice”, “my family is made to feel welcome”, “I have everything I need here and nothing is too much trouble for the staff”. Residents did not have to choose their main meal the day before or in the morning, meals were chosen at the table just before they were served. Israel Sieff Court DS0000021553.V348393.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 6 Staff were observed to treat residents with respect. Recruitment procedures were robust and protected residents and there was a good programme of training available. 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. Israel Sieff Court DS0000021553.V348393.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 7 DETAILS OF INSPECTOR FINDINGS CONTENTS Choice of Home (Standards 1–6) Health and Personal Care (Standards 7-11) Daily Life and Social Activities (Standards 12-15) Complaints and Protection (Standards 16-18) Environment (Standards 19-26) Staffing (Standards 27-30) Management and Administration (Standards 31-38) Scoring of Outcomes Statutory Requirements Identified During the Inspection Israel Sieff Court DS0000021553.V348393.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 8 Choice of Home The intended outcomes for Standards 1 – 6 are: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Prospective service users have the information they need to make an informed choice about where to live. Each service user has a written contract/ statement of terms and conditions with the home. No service user moves into the home without having had his/her needs assessed and been assured that these will be met. Service users and their representatives know that the home they enter will meet their needs. Prospective service users and their relatives and friends have an opportunity to visit and assess the quality, facilities and suitability of the home. Service users assessed and referred solely for intermediate care are helped to maximise their independence and return home. The Commission considers Standards 3 and 6 the key standards to be inspected. JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for the following standard(s): 2 and 6 Quality in this outcome area is excellent. This judgement has been made using available evidence including a visit to this service. Detailed information about the home is made available in various formats and people’s needs were assessed before they move in. EVIDENCE: There was an information pack provided to prospective residents that gave enough information for people to make an informed decision about moving in. The information was available in large print and would be translated into other languages if the need arose. The manager or deputy manager visited the person in his or her own home or in hospital to carry out a pre-admission assessment. Where possible a care manager’s assessment was obtained. A care plan was written using the information gathered during these assessments. Israel Sieff Court DS0000021553.V348393.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 9 There was evidence that care plans were written using a person-centred approach. A sample of assessments of four people were examined and found to contain some good information. Residents spoken to said that they were given an opportunity to visit the home before making a decision to move in. This home did not provide intermediate care. Israel Sieff Court DS0000021553.V348393.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. JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for the following standard(s): 7, 8, 9 and 10 Quality in this outcome area is excellent. This judgement has been made using available evidence including a visit to this service. Care plans were person-centred and addressed the health, personal and social care needs of individuals. EVIDENCE: A sample of service plans for four people were examined and found to contain enough information about how resident’s needs were to be met. There was evidence to show that service plans were being reviewed regularly. Risk assessments around areas such as falls, pressure areas and nutrition had been carried out. Service plans gave details of the resident’s preferred funeral arrangements and wishes and some residents had written the life history section of the service plan. Israel Sieff Court DS0000021553.V348393.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 11 Daily records were kept with the service plan. Some of these were very repetitive and general statements such as ‘care given in line with care plan 1’ were used. The manager agreed to look at ways of ensuring a more accurate detailed record is kept to evidence the care provided. All residents were registered with a local GP and where possible residents had retained their own GP. Records of visits from other healthcare professionals were held in each resident’s file. Medication was well managed, stored correctly and records were maintained to a good standard. Staff had received training in the administration of medication. This reduced the risk of medication errors. Medication stock was adequate and a record was being made of all medication received into the home and disposed of. Israel Sieff Court DS0000021553.V348393.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. JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for the following standard(s): 12, 13, 14 and 15 Quality in this outcome area is excellent. This judgement has been made using available evidence including a visit to this service. The home offers a wide range of recreational activities. A well-planned and varied diet is provided and resident’s choice is very well catered for. EVIDENCE: Staff were observed welcoming visitors into the home. There was an open visiting policy and residents were able to see visitors in one of the lounges or in the privacy of their own rooms if preferred. One resident told us their visitors were always made to feel welcome and can visit at any time. Other residents said that they were able to have friends and family visit when they liked. Most bedrooms had a telephone socket and residents were able to have a private telephone fitted if they wished. Menus were based on a four-week rota and were reviewed regularly to take into account resident’s preferences. Israel Sieff Court DS0000021553.V348393.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 13 The menus were displayed in the dining room and also in the main corridor so that residents knew what the meal choices were for each day. Residents were able to choose an alternative to the set menu if they did not like the menu choice for the day. People spoken with said, “the food is good” and “the meals are usually very good, very tasty”. One resident told us that they had a kettle in their room and were able to make a cup of tea whenever they wanted. Ministers from local churches visited the home on a weekly basis. The manager told us that arrangements would be made to support residents from other religious backgrounds as and when required. Residents enjoyed a full and active lifestyle with a number of different in-house recreational activities on offer. An activities programme was in place that included outings to local areas of interest, art classes and discussion groups and professional entertainers visited the home. Managers and staff encouraged residents to be active and provided a range of opportunities for residents to maintain social/community contacts where possible. Residents told us “we have card making and painting and go out on trips”, ” there is something going on every day”. There was evidence to show that the manager and staff encouraged residents to maintain contact with family and friends. One resident told us that a relative who was viewing a flat nearby was invited to have lunch with them on the day of our site visit. The hairdressing salon had been re-fitted since the last inspection and this gave the impression of being in a hairdressing salon this was a well used facility and residents were able to sit and chat whilst having their hair cut and set. Israel Sieff Court DS0000021553.V348393.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. JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for the following standard(s): 16, 17 and 18 Quality in this outcome area is good. This judgement has been made using available evidence including a visit to this service. There was a complaints procedure. All policies and procedures were in place to make sure residents were protected from harm. EVIDENCE: There was a written complaint procedure and all complaints received were recorded. This record included details of the complaint, the investigation and the outcome. Residents spoken to said that if they had a complaint they would first speak to the manager. The complaints policy and procedure were displayed in the home and information about how to make a complaint was included in the service user guide. There was a copy of the Manchester Multi-Agency Policy on the Protection of Vulnerable Adults available for staff to reference. There had been no adult protection referrals made. There was evidence to show that staff received training in safeguarding adults so that they were able to recognise abuse and report it. Israel Sieff Court DS0000021553.V348393.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 15 There was a whistle-blowing policy so that staff knew that the organisation would support them. Post was delivered to residents unopened and information on independent advocacy agencies was displayed in the home. There was evidence to show that resident’s right to vote was maintained. They were registered on the electoral role and could access the postal voting system or if they prefer they would be assisted to the local polling station. Israel Sieff Court DS0000021553.V348393.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 16 Environment The intended outcomes for Standards 19 – 26 are: 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. Service users live in a safe, well-maintained environment. Service users have access to safe and comfortable indoor and outdoor communal facilities. Service users have sufficient and suitable lavatories and washing facilities. Service users have the specialist equipment they require to maximise their independence. Service users’ own rooms suit their needs. Service users live in safe, comfortable bedrooms with their own possessions around them. Service users live in safe, comfortable surroundings. The home is clean, pleasant and hygienic. The Commission considers Standards 19 and 26 the key standards to be inspected. JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for the following standard(s): 19 and 26 Quality in this outcome area is good. This judgement has been made using available evidence including a visit to this service. The premises are safe and the home’s environment, including the standard of hygiene, was well maintained both internally and externally. EVIDENCE: A sample of bedrooms were seen and residents spoken to said “I like my room I spend a lot of time in here”, “the place is very clean”, “it is always very clean and tidy they work very hard” and “I am really happy here”. Residents spoken to said that it was like living in their own home and they were able to come and go as they please. Israel Sieff Court DS0000021553.V348393.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 17 There was evidence that residents had brought some personal belongings with them. All rooms seen were found to be clean and tidy and nicely decorated and those residents spoken to said that they were very happy with their rooms. There was enough domestic staff to keep the home clean and we noted that there were no unpleasant odours during the tour of the home. The dining room was bright and airy with a relaxed comfortable atmosphere Aids and adaptations were provided to assist in moving residents safely. These include 2 manual hoists and an inflatable ‘cushion’ that gave residents some control over how they were lifted. There was evidence to show that staff had received manual handling training to enable them to use the equipment safely and safeguard residents. Israel Sieff Court DS0000021553.V348393.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 18 Staffing The intended outcomes for Standards 27 – 30 are: 27. 28. 29. 30. Service users’ needs are met by the numbers and skill mix of staff. Service users are in safe hands at all times. Service users are supported and protected by the home’s recruitment policy and practices. Staff are trained and competent to do their jobs. The Commission consider all the above are key standards to be inspected. JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for the following standard(s): 27, 28, 29 and 30 Quality in this outcome area is good. This judgement has been made using available evidence including a visit to this service. The numbers and skill mix of staff was sufficient to meet the needs of the residents accommodated and staff have access to a wide range of training. EVIDENCE: A sample of staff files was examined. These were well maintained and contained all the necessary checks including Criminal Records Bureau (CRB) checks and checks had been made against the Protection of Vulnerable Adults list (POVA). Staffing rotas showed that there were enough staff to meet resident’s needs. Staff spoken to said that they had access to training. A training plan was seen that showed training in relation to manual handling, medication, fire safety, First Aid, and Protection of Vulnerable Adults had been provided. The manager reported that regular staff supervision was provided and all staff completed an induction period. There was evidence on staff files to show that staff were given a copy of their job description detailing their roles and responsibilities. Israel Sieff Court DS0000021553.V348393.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 19 Staff files provided evidence of vocational training in service related areas, e.g. moving and handling, food hygiene, safe administration of medicines and fire safety. Training needs were identified during supervision and the home provided ongoing refresher training. Staff have the opportunity to complete the NVQ in care and currently more than half the care staff hold the NVQ2 in care. Staff were caring and approached residents in a polite and respectful manner. Residents told us that staff were “ kind and caring”, “very helpful” and “quite friendly”. Israel Sieff Court DS0000021553.V348393.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 20 Management and Administration The intended outcomes for Standards 31 – 38 are: 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. Service users live in a home which is run and managed by a person who is fit to be in charge, of good character and able to discharge his or her responsibilities fully. Service users benefit from the ethos, leadership and management approach of the home. The home is run in the best interests of service users. Service users are safeguarded by the accounting and financial procedures of the home. Service users’ financial interests are safeguarded. Staff are appropriately supervised. Service users’ rights and best interests are safeguarded by the home’s record keeping, policies and procedures. The health, safety and welfare of service users and staff are promoted and protected. The Commission considers Standards 31, 33, 35 and 38 the key standards to be inspected. JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for the following standard(s): 31, 33, 35 and 38 Quality in this outcome area is excellent. This judgement has been made using available evidence including a visit to this service. The home’s quality monitoring systems protected residents and the home had systems and procedures in place, which safeguarded and protected resident’s financial interests. EVIDENCE: The manager reported that she has completed the NVQ Level 4 in Management. This demonstrated to people visiting the home that she had the necessary skills qualifications and experience needed to manage a care home. A health and safety policy was in place and risk assessments of the premises and safe working practices had been carried out. This was to ensure that both Israel Sieff Court DS0000021553.V348393.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 21 residents and staff had relevant information to enable them to live and work in a safe environment. Fixed Gas and Electricty appliances had been regularly maintained and a periodic test of portable appliences and lifting equipment had been carried out and good records are kept. These checks mean that the safety of residents, staff and visitors was given priority. The home’s certificates of registration and public liability insurance had been displayed in the entrance hall. These were accurate and up to date. Fire equipment had been regularly maintained and staff had received fire awareness training. Fire alarm systems are tested on a weekly basis by staff in the home and annually by the local Fire Officer. All records were held securely in locked cabinets in compliance with the Data Protection Act 1998. This made sure that personal information about residents remained confidential. Policies and procedures were in place with regard to managing residents finances. Records kept at the home indicate that the financial interest of the residents is safeguarded. A quality assurance and quality monitoring system was in place and blank copies of the quality monitoring questionnaires were in the foyer for visitors and residents to complete. There was an open door policy and residents and staff had access to senior staff at all times. Staff spoken to said that the manager was always ready to listen to concerns and answer questions. Israel Sieff Court DS0000021553.V348393.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 22 SCORING OF OUTCOMES This page summarises the assessment of the extent to which the National Minimum Standards for Care Homes for Older People have been met and uses the following scale. The scale ranges from: 4 Standard Exceeded 2 Standard Almost Met (Commendable) (Minor Shortfalls) 3 Standard Met 1 Standard Not Met (No Shortfalls) (Major Shortfalls) “X” in the standard met box denotes standard not assessed on this occasion “N/A” in the standard met box denotes standard not applicable CHOICE OF HOME Standard No Score 1 2 3 4 5 6 ENVIRONMENT Standard No Score 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 4 X X X X N/A HEALTH AND PERSONAL CARE Standard No Score 7 4 8 3 9 3 10 3 11 X DAILY LIFE AND SOCIAL ACTIVITIES Standard No Score 12 3 13 4 14 3 15 4 COMPLAINTS AND PROTECTION Standard No Score 16 3 17 3 18 3 3 X X X X X X 3 STAFFING Standard No Score 27 3 28 3 29 3 30 3 MANAGEMENT AND ADMINISTRATION Standard No 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 Score 4 X 3 X 3 X X 3 Israel Sieff Court DS0000021553.V348393.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 23 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. 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. Refer to Standard Good Practice Recommendations Israel Sieff Court DS0000021553.V348393.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 24 Commission for Social Care Inspection Manchester Local office 11th Floor West Point 501 Chester Road Manchester M16 9HU 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 Israel Sieff Court DS0000021553.V348393.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 25 - Please note that this information is included on www.bestcarehome.co.uk under license from the regulator. Re-publishing this information is in breach of the terms of use of that website. Discrete codes and changes have been inserted throughout the textual data shown on the site that will provide incontrovertable proof of copying in the event this information is re-published on other websites. The policy of www.bestcarehome.co.uk is to use all legal avenues to pursue such offenders, including recovery of costs. You have been warned!