Inspection on 28/02/06 for Israel Sieff Court

This inspection was carried out on 28th February 2006.

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

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

Other inspections for this house

Israel Sieff Court 09/07/09

Israel Sieff Court 21/08/07

Israel Sieff Court 12/02/07

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 Ann Connolly Unannounced Inspection 28th February 2006 11:45 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.V279231.R01.S.doc Version 5.1 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.V279231.R01.S.doc Version 5.1 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 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.V279231.R01.S.doc Version 5.1 Page 4 SERVICE INFORMATION Conditions of registration: Date of last inspection 1st September 2005 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 forms 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.V279231.R01.S.doc Version 5.1 Page 5 SUMMARY This is an overview of what the inspector found during the inspection. This inspection was unannounced and took place on the 28 February 2006. During the inspection, time was spent talking to staff, residents and visitors in order to find out their views about the home. Time was also spent examining medication and care plan files, and a tour of the building took place. This home continues to provide high standards of care in a well-maintained environment. There was evidence to confirm that the manager and staff are committed to providing quality services in a manner that is both caring and sensitive. All staff spoken to demonstrated an understanding of good care practice and were keen to continue with their personal development and access relevant training courses. Since the last inspection a new deputy manager has been appointed in the home. The deputy manager was on duty at the time of inspection, and demonstrated a good understanding of the day to day management of the home. During this inspection only a selection of the National Minimum Standards were assessed. In order to gain a full picture of how the home meets the needs of residents, this report should be read together with the previous and any future reports. What the service does well: This home continues to work towards improving and developing systems within the home. Staff demonstrated an understanding of good care practice and adopted a holistic approach when providing care services to residents in the home. There was a strong focus on seeking the views of the residents, and in providing flexible care arrangements. One resident said, “ Staff are wonderful, nothing is too much trouble for them. If I want meals in my room, I only have to mention it to the staff and they arrange it for me”. The home has a motivated staff team and a supportive management structure. Staff and residents in the home expressed confidence in approaching the manager with any issues of concern. Residents and relatives were observed frequently ‘popping’ into the office. One relative said that staff were very supportive and she felt confident that her mother was receiving a good standard of care. She also said she felt involved in all aspects of her mother’s care planning. Another relative said that she felt staff were very approachable, Israel Sieff Court DS0000021553.V279231.R01.S.doc Version 5.1 Page 6 “the staff here don’t ignore what you say, if you just mention anything they will address the concern”. Israel Sieff provides a ‘homely’ atmosphere in a purpose built environment. Décor, furnishings and hygiene were of an exceptionally high standard, and this has been consistently maintained over the last four inspections. Care plans have been developed using a person centred approach which provides a structure for involving residents and their families in the planning of care to meet the needs of individuals. The home continues to prioritise training for all staff. There was evidence of ongoing training opportunities for all staff working in the home. The home continues to benefit from good administrative support which benefits staff and residents in the smooth running of all the administrative tasks. 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. Israel Sieff Court DS0000021553.V279231.R01.S.doc Version 5.1 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.V279231.R01.S.doc Version 5.1 Page 8 Choice of Home The intended outcomes for Standards 1 – 6 are: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Prospective service users have the information they need to make an informed choice about where to live. Each service user has a written contract/ statement of terms and conditions with the home. No service user moves into the home without having had his/her needs assessed and been assured that these will be met. Service users and their representatives know that the home they enter will meet their needs. Prospective service users and their relatives and friends have an opportunity to visit and assess the quality, facilities and suitability of the home. Service users assessed and referred solely for intermediate care are helped to maximise their independence and return home. The Commission considers Standards 3 and 6 the key standards to be inspected at least once during a 12 month period. JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for the following standard(s): No judgement was made. EVIDENCE: These standards were not assessed during this inspection. Israel Sieff Court DS0000021553.V279231.R01.S.doc Version 5.1 Page 9 Health and Personal Care The intended outcomes for Standards 7 – 11 are: 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. The service user’s health, personal and social care needs are set out in an individual plan of care. Service users’ health care needs are fully met. Service users, where appropriate, are responsible for their own medication, and are protected by the home’s policies and procedures for dealing with medicines. Service users feel they are treated with respect and their right to privacy is upheld. Service users are assured that at the time of their death, staff will treat them and their family with care, sensitivity and respect. The Commission considers Standards 7, 8, 9 and 10 the key standards to be inspected at least once during a 12 month period. JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for the following standard(s): 7, 8, 9 and 10 Procedures, practices and systems were in place to ensure residents’ healthcare needs were met. EVIDENCE: All residents in the home had a care plan in the form of ‘an individual lifestyle agreement’. This document had been compiled using the information in the pre admission assessment. Care plans were worded in the first person to reflect the involvement of the resident in drawing up the care plan. The files which were examined were well organised and provided evidence that consultations had taken place with residents about their own perception of their care needs, and how they wanted their care needs to be met. In the two files examined, it was noted, that although there was considerable detail in the reviews, there were some shortfalls in linking the findings of the review to the current care plan, and in updating the care plan to reflect theses changes. It was evident through discussion with the Deputy manager that they were aware of the shortfalls. Steps had been taken within the organisation to improve care planning programmes to ensure that all needs are clearly identified with detailed recording of interventions and support to meet needs. The deputy manager said that a care team had been set up to work with a project group Israel Sieff Court DS0000021553.V279231.R01.S.doc Version 5.1 Page 10 with the purpose of developing an evidence based assessment and care planning tool to be implemented across all Anchor homes. In order to roll out the programme in the homes, it is anticipated that managers and senior staff will attend a range of workshops and cascade the information to all staff. During discussions with residents it was evident that positive relationships had been established with staff. Residents spoke highly of the way staff supported and assisted them. Staff were observed in providing sensitive intervention, and treated residents with respect. Medication was administered using the ‘Venalink’ blister pack monitored dosage system. Staff responsible for the administration of medication were listed in the medication records. The medication trolley was well organised and all medication was stored and labelled appropriately. The previous requirements to provide staff with refresher training in medication systems had been addressed. On this inspection, medication was administered appropriately following correct procedures. Stock levels were examined and loose medication balanced with records on the Medication Administration Records (MAR). Israel Sieff Court DS0000021553.V279231.R01.S.doc Version 5.1 Page 11 Daily Life and Social Activities The intended outcomes for Standards 12 - 15 are: 12. 13. 14. 15. Service users find the lifestyle experienced in the home matches their expectations and preferences, and satisfies their social, cultural, religious and recreational interests and needs. Service users maintain contact with family/ friends/ representatives and the local community as they wish. Service users are helped to exercise choice and control over their lives. Service users receive a wholesome appealing balanced diet in pleasing surroundings at times convenient to them. The Commission considers all of the above key standards to be inspected at least once during a 12 month period. JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for the following standard(s): 13 and 14 The home supports and encourages residents to maintain links with their family and friends and allows residents to exercise as much choice and control over their lives as they can. EVIDENCE: The home has an open visiting policy and information about visiting arrangements was included in the statement of purpose and service user guide. Residents who were spoken to confirmed that they could receive visitors at any time. There was evidence that residents were helped to exercise choice and control over their lives. Residents spoke about going out with their relatives and friends and about the flexible arrangements in the home. One resident said, ‘ you can get up when you want and come and go when you want’. Another resident said, Staff are wonderful, nothing is too much trouble for them. If I want my meals in my room, I only have to mention it to the staff.’ Staff who were spoken to had a good understanding about good practice in helping residents to maintain control over their lives. Israel Sieff Court DS0000021553.V279231.R01.S.doc Version 5.1 Page 12 Complaints and Protection The intended outcomes for Standards 16 - 18 are: 16. 17. 18. Service users and their relatives and friends are confident that their complaints will be listened to, taken seriously and acted upon. Service users’ legal rights are protected. Service users are protected from abuse. The Commission considers Standards 16 and 18 the key standards to be inspected at least once during a 12 month period. JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for the following standard(s): 18 The home has policies and procedures to protect residents from abuse. EVIDENCE: The home used the Manchester Multi- Agency policy for the Protection of Vulnerable Adults from Abuse, including the Department of Health Guidance ‘No Secrets’. Staff spoken to were aware of issues surrounding abuse and the importance of reporting any allegation of abuse. The deputy manager said that the organisation was developing national POVA mandatory training for all staff employed by the Anchor group. Israel Sieff Court DS0000021553.V279231.R01.S.doc Version 5.1 Page 13 Environment The intended outcomes for Standards 19 – 26 are: 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. Service users live in a safe, well-maintained environment. Service users have access to safe and comfortable indoor and outdoor communal facilities. Service users have sufficient and suitable lavatories and washing facilities. Service users have the specialist equipment they require to maximise their independence. Service users’ own rooms suit their needs. Service users live in safe, comfortable bedrooms with their own possessions around them. Service users live in safe, comfortable surroundings. The home is clean, pleasant and hygienic. The Commission considers Standards 19 and 26 the key standards to be inspected at least once during a 12 month period. JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for the following standard(s): 20 The environment was tidy, clean and comfortable with a high standard of furnishing and decoration throughout the home. EVIDENCE: Israel Sieff provides a ‘homely’ environment within a purpose built building. Furnishings throughout the building were domestic in character, and of a high standard. As in previous inspections there continues to be an emphasis on maintaining standards and there was evidence of ongoing maintenance and refurbishment. Since the last inspection new non-slip laminate flooring has been fitted in the dining room which enhances the facilities for residents in the home. A ramp has been fitted to exit at the rear of the dining room to provide access onto a patio area. There are plans in place to develop the patio area to provide pleasant outdoor living space. This latest initiative was in response to feedback received from residents and relatives in the latest quality assurance exercise carried out by the home. This provided further evidence of a home which is committed to continuous ongoing development of the service in order to improve facilities and standards for the residents in the home. Israel Sieff Court DS0000021553.V279231.R01.S.doc Version 5.1 Page 14 Staffing The intended outcomes for Standards 27 – 30 are: 27. 28. 29. 30. Service users’ needs are met by the numbers and skill mix of staff. Service users are in safe hands at all times. Service users are supported and protected by the home’s recruitment policy and practices. Staff are trained and competent to do their jobs. The Commission consider all the above are key standards to be inspected at least once during a 12 month period. JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for the following standard(s): 29 and 30 Residents were protected by the home’s recruitment policies and procedures, and staff training programmes ensure that staff have the necessary skills to meet the needs of residents in the home. EVIDENCE: Staff files were well organised and included all the appropriate documentation including two written references. Files included documentation to confirm that staff had a Criminal Record Bureau check. All staff had a new staff training portfolio which has recently been developed by Anchor. The aim is to bring together all learning and development resources for staff in Anchor homes. The learning and development centre is accredited as an NVQ centre by the body Edexel. The record portfolio includes information for staff on their role in the learning context, list of training and mandatory training, and copies of certificates. The training record for the year was in place. The home are making good progress with providing NVQ training for staff and at present the requirement for over 50 of staff to be qualified to NVQ Level 2 is exceeded. Good systems were in place to record and track supervision programmes for staff and there was evidence that increased supervision was provided for a new member of staff in order to support them through the induction process. Israel Sieff Court DS0000021553.V279231.R01.S.doc Version 5.1 Page 15 Management and Administration The intended outcomes for Standards 31 – 38 are: 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. Service users live in a home which is run and managed by a person who is fit to be in charge, of good character and able to discharge his or her responsibilities fully. Service users benefit from the ethos, leadership and management approach of the home. The home is run in the best interests of service users. Service users are safeguarded by the accounting and financial procedures of the home. Service users’ financial interests are safeguarded. Staff are appropriately supervised. Service users’ rights and best interests are safeguarded by the home’s record keeping, policies and procedures. The health, safety and welfare of service users and staff are promoted and protected. The Commission considers Standards 31, 33, 35 and 38 the key standards to be inspected at least once during a 12 month period. JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for the following standard(s): 38 Policies, procedures and systems were in place to promote the health, safety and welfare of residents and staff in the home. EVIDENCE: There was evidence that health and safety records were in place and that staff had received training in health and safety. The home had just completed a full audit of health and safety on the home and had received certification to evidence that the home had successfully completed all health and safety requirements. There was evidence that the home had been actively involved in a quality assurance programme, which consulted residents and relatives on a number of aspects to measure how the home was performing. It was positive to note that the home had responded to feedback, and had used the findings to develop various aspects of the service. Israel Sieff Court DS0000021553.V279231.R01.S.doc Version 5.1 Page 16 SCORING OF OUTCOMES This page summarises the assessment of the extent to which the National Minimum Standards for Care Homes for Older People have been met and uses the following scale. The scale ranges from: 4 Standard Exceeded 2 Standard Almost Met (Commendable) (Minor Shortfalls) 3 Standard Met 1 Standard Not Met (No Shortfalls) (Major Shortfalls) “X” in the standard met box denotes standard not assessed on this occasion “N/A” in the standard met box denotes standard not applicable CHOICE OF HOME Standard No Score 1 2 3 4 5 6 ENVIRONMENT Standard No Score 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 X X X X X X HEALTH AND PERSONAL CARE Standard No Score 7 3 8 3 9 3 10 3 11 x DAILY LIFE AND SOCIAL ACTIVITIES Standard No Score 12 X 13 X 14 3 15 x COMPLAINTS AND PROTECTION Standard No Score 16 X 17 X 18 3 x 3 X X X X X X STAFFING Standard No Score 27 X 28 X 29 3 30 3 MANAGEMENT AND ADMINISTRATION Standard No 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 Score X X X X X X X 3 Israel Sieff Court DS0000021553.V279231.R01.S.doc Version 5.1 Page 17 yes 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. 1 Standard 35 Regulation 20 Requirement The registered manager must ensure that money belonging to residents is held in an account in the name of the resident to whom the money belongs. (Previous Timescale not met 12/12/05) Timescale for action 01/06/06 RECOMMENDATIONS These recommendations relate to National Minimum Standards and are seen as good practice for the Registered Provider/s to consider carrying out. No. Refer to Standard Good Practice Recommendations Israel Sieff Court DS0000021553.V279231.R01.S.doc Version 5.1 Page 18 Commission for Social Care Inspection CSCI, Local office 9th Floor Oakland House Talbot Road Manchester M16 0PQ National Enquiry Line: 0845 015 0120 Email: enquiries@csci.gsi.gov.uk Web: www.csci.org.uk © This report is copyright Commission for Social Care Inspection (CSCI) and may only be used in its entirety. Extracts may not be used or reproduced without the express permission of CSCI Israel Sieff Court DS0000021553.V279231.R01.S.doc Version 5.1 Page 19 - 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!