Inspection on 29/11/06 for Kings Court Care Centre

This inspection was carried out on 29th November 2006.

CSCI has not published a star rating for this report, though using similar criteria we estimate that the report is Excellent. 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

Kings Court Care Centre 28/08/08

Kings Court Care Centre 05/12/05

Kings Court Care Centre 19/05/05

Kings Court Care Centre 02/11/04

Kings Court Care Centre 11/05/04

Similar services:

Fairfields Country Rest Home

Poldhu

Queensmount

Trevaylor Manor

Didsbury Court Rest Home

Belma

Hunters Care Centre

Manor Lodge

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

CARE HOMES FOR OLDER PEOPLE Kings Court Care Centre Kent Road Swindon Wiltshire SN1 3NP Lead Inspector Steve Cousins ` Key Unannounced Inspection 29 – 30 November, 7th December 2006 09:30 th th 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 Kings Court Care Centre DS0000015920.V304680.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. Kings Court Care Centre DS0000015920.V304680.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 3 SERVICE INFORMATION Name of service Kings Court Care Centre Address Kent Road Swindon Wiltshire SN1 3NP 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) 01793 715480 01793 715490 manager.kingscourt@lifestylecare.co.uk Life Style Care Plc Mrs Helen Marshall Care Home 60 Category(ies) of Dementia - over 65 years of age (31), Old age, registration, with number not falling within any other category (29), of places Terminally ill (3) Kings Court Care Centre DS0000015920.V304680.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 4 SERVICE INFORMATION Conditions of registration: 1. The maximum numbers of service users who may be accommodated in the home at any one time must not exceed 60 of which no more than 29 may be in receipt of general nursing care at any one time and must be accommodated on the ground floor and no more than 31 may be in receipt of dementia nursing care at any one time and must be accommodated on the first floor Of the 29 service users in receipt of general nursing care, up to 8 of these may be in the age range 50 - 64 years at any one time Up to 3 service users of either sex over 65 years of age requiring nursing care by reason of a terminal illness may be accommodated at any one time The minimum staffing levels set in the Notice of Decision dated 28 January 2003 must be met at all times 5th December 2005 2. 3. 4. Date of last inspection Brief Description of the Service: Kings Court Care Centre is situated in the Old Town area of Swindon close to the town centre, local shops, churches and local bus routes. The centre comprises of a two-storey purpose built nursing home with general nursing and dementia nursing units on separate floors. All rooms are single and have en suite facilities. The garden has been landscaped and provides a pleasant and attractive environment for service users to enjoy. The home is part of the Life Style Care group and the registered manager is Mrs Helen Marshall. There are registered nurses on duty at all times in both units, supported by care assistants. Ancillary support includes activity, catering, domestic, maintenance and administration services. The current range of fees is £480 to £663 per week. Kings Court Care Centre DS0000015920.V304680.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 5 SUMMARY This is an overview of what the inspector found during the inspection. This unannounced inspection took place over the 29th and 30th of November and the 7th December 2006 in order to inspect all of the key minimum standards relating to care homes for elderly people. The inspector met with Mrs Marshall, the registered manager, at the end of the second day in order to discuss the outcome of the visit to the home. Mary Collier, the Commissions Pharmacy Inspector, visited the home on the 7th December 2006 in order to review the arrangements regarding medication and discussed the outcome of her visit with Donna Thompson, the home’s deputy manager. The judgements contained in this report have been made from evidence gathered during the inspection and takes into account the views and experiences of people using the service. The findings from this inspection are based on a tour of the premises, speaking to residents, relatives, managers and staff, and visiting frail residents. A number of records were inspected, including care plans, medication records, staff records and a questionnaire sent out by Life Style Care in November 2006. Comment cards were received from two residents’ relatives following the inspection and the findings are incorporated in this report. What the service does well: What has improved since the last inspection? Some communal areas have been redecorated and prints have been hung in corridors, which has given a more homely feel to the accommodation. Suitable locks have been fitted to bathroom and toilet doors. Kings Court Care Centre DS0000015920.V304680.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 6 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. Kings Court Care Centre DS0000015920.V304680.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 Kings Court Care Centre DS0000015920.V304680.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 at least once during a 12 month period. JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for the following standard(s): 1,2 and 3. Standard 6 does not apply to this home. Prospective residents are supplied with the information needed to make a choice about the home and are assessed before moving in. Clear contracts detailing terms and conditions are supplied to residents or their advocates. The quality in this outcome area is good. This judgement has been made from evidence gathered before, during and after the visit to this service. EVIDENCE: A statement of purpose is available and the home provides a copy of this and it’s service user guide to any person who enquires about moving into the home, along with additional information, such as fees, extra charges and conditions of admission. Where possible, potential residents or their advocates are able to visit the home prior to admission, and one current resident confirmed they had done so. Residents records reviewed by the inspector contained pre admission assessment forms that had been completed by the manager or her deputy. Some contained other supporting documents such as assessments from care managers and hospital discharge summaries. The information is used to aid Kings Court Care Centre DS0000015920.V304680.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 9 completion of individual care plans and information had been supplied by relatives where required. The home writes to the resident or their advocate prior to admission, supplying a placement agreement and contract, which includes details of the agreed fee and the arrangement for paying them. Should fees change, letters are sent to any self-funding residents a minimum of one month in advance, detailing the change. Fee changes for those who are not self funding are negotiated with the placing authority. Kings Court Care Centre DS0000015920.V304680.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 10 Health and Personal Care The intended outcomes for Standards 7 – 11 are: 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. The service user’s health, personal and social care needs are set out in an individual plan of care. Service users’ health care needs are fully met. Service users, where appropriate, are responsible for their own medication, and are protected by the home’s policies and procedures for dealing with medicines. Service users feel they are treated with respect and their right to privacy is upheld. Service users are assured that at the time of their death, staff will treat them and their family with care, sensitivity and respect. The Commission considers Standards 7, 8, 9 and 10 the key standards to be inspected at least once during a 12 month period. JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for the following standard(s): 7,8,9 and 10 The residents’ health and personal care needs are being assessed and met but some areas relating to planning and recording could be improved. Residents are treated respectfully and their right to privacy is upheld. Residents are protected by the home’s procedures for medication handling, however staff need to ensure that sufficient information is available for the use of ‘as required’ medication. The quality in this outcome area is good. This judgement has been made from evidence gathered before, during and after the visit to this service. EVIDENCE: The inspector reviewed the care of six residents, two males and four females between the ages of 77 and 89. They had varying physical, social and mental health needs. Some were new to the home and others had been at Kings Court for some time. Two were unable to verbally communicate and were fully dependent on staff support and two were unable to comment on their care due to the level of their dementia. Kings Court Care Centre DS0000015920.V304680.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 11 The residents care plans were reviewed. They appeared to be an accurate reflection of assessed needs and were being regularly reviewed. Assessments for tissue viability, manual handling and nutrition were in place. Although generally good, the inspector did find two areas where care planning and assessment procedures required improvement. Where plans indicate a need for monitoring of fluid and food intake, record charts were not always fully completed in order to evidence practice and allow for review. Additionally, a resident who had a skin break recorded, did have a wound assessment carried out and a record of the initial dressing, however no further action or review had been recorded despite dressings still being applied. The inspector visited the residents and found that interventions were in place to meet their assessed needs, such as pressure relief equipment, continence aids, manual handling equipment and fluid intake charts. The residents’ appeared to be having their personal hygiene needs met and those who were able to communicate indicated satisfaction with the care given. Those who were assessed as being nutritionally at risk were regularly weighed. Records indicated that residents had access to their GP and that staff took prompt action when there was a health care need. Residents reported being able to see a GP when they needed to. Records also indicated that staff sought the advice of other health care professionals, such as the community mental health team and the tissue viability nurse specialist, when required. One resident felt that they were physically better since coming to the home and another indicated that action had been taken to control the pain they had suffered due to their condition. Another said, “I am well looked after”. Comments received in the homes annual questionnaire indicated an overall satisfaction with the level of care in the home and included “I think the care received is very good” and “my ---- is very ill and I am pleased --- is in such a lovely care home and very well looked after”. There was evidence to suggest that residents’ privacy and dignity was respected. Personal care was given behind closed doors and staff knocked on doors before entering a room. For those with dementia, efforts were made to ensure that they were appropriately dressed and their personal hygiene needs were met. Residents comments included “I’m very happy” and “the staff are kind to me”. One relative commented in the questionnaire “On a couple of occasions I felt that there was a lack of dignity. After discussing this problem it has been rectified”. Medication is stored suitably. Receipts, administration and disposals are recorded. Staff were knowledgeable about the medication and the individual residents’ preferences; for example one nurse explained how a resident’s morning drugs would be re-offered later as that was when he was usually more willing to take them. Kings Court Care Centre DS0000015920.V304680.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 12 Written additions to the medication administration record were not always signed and checked in accordance with the home’s own policy. There were no care plans for some medication prescribed ‘as required’. One resident had recently been prescribed two medicines for similar indications and no instructions to staff were recorded as to which one to use in particular circumstances. The recording of ‘as required’ medication on the medication sheet indicated that it was offered at set times. Medication given in this way should be recorded with the precise time it was given and not restricted to the times of regular drug rounds. Kings Court Care Centre DS0000015920.V304680.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 13 Daily Life and Social Activities The intended outcomes for Standards 12 - 15 are: 12. 13. 14. 15. Service users find the lifestyle experienced in the home matches their expectations and preferences, and satisfies their social, cultural, religious and recreational interests and needs. Service users maintain contact with family/ friends/ representatives and the local community as they wish. Service users are helped to exercise choice and control over their lives. Service users receive a wholesome appealing balanced diet in pleasing surroundings at times convenient to them. The Commission considers all of the above key standards to be inspected at least once during a 12 month period. JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for the following standard(s): 12,13,14 and 15. Some social activity is provided, however this could be further enhanced by the introduction of more frequent and varied activities. Residents are able to maintain contact with family and friends and as far as possible, have choice and control over their lives. Nutritious, balanced meals are available, which the residents enjoy. The quality in this outcome area is good. This judgement has been made from evidence gathered before, during and after the visit to this service. EVIDENCE: The inspector met with the homes activity coordinator who works full time from Monday to Friday. No other activity staff members are employed. Currently a range of in-house activities is provided, which were either held in groups or occasionally with individual residents. Opportunities to support residents to access social activity outside of the home are currently limited. Comments about activities received in the homes annual questionnaire were mixed, one person stated, “seems very good” and another “definitely improved”, whilst others felt that there was not enough ‘one to one’ activity, or physical activity. Residents were seen to be enjoying the group activities being held during the inspection but one resident who preferred not to join in group Kings Court Care Centre DS0000015920.V304680.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 14 activity said they felt “a bit lonely” and said “staff are busy and do not always have the time to talk”. The home accommodates up to 60 residents and it is recommended that thought be given to increasing the staff hours available to support social activity. The two relatives comment cards received both indicated that they were able to visit in private and were welcomed at any time. They also felt that they were kept informed of important matters concerning the resident. Comments received in the homes questionnaire generally supported this view. Visitors were in evidence throughout the two days of the inspection and several residents confirmed that they had visitors and were able to keep in contact with friends and relatives, one stating: “I am able to keep in touch by phone, which I have in my room”. Resident’s are able to have visitors in their own room or one of the communal areas. As far as possible, residents were being supported to exercise choice and control. Examples were evident in residents’ comments such as “I asked and was able to move from my old room into this one”, and “I don’t often go to the sitting room, I prefer to stay in my room”. Some residents had brought in personal items and furniture for their rooms and some indicated that they had a choice as to whether they joined in any activities that are organised, stating that they preferred to stay in their rooms and read or watch the television. Residents who wish to can attend religious services held in the home. Residents who were able to offer an opinion commented favourably on the quality of meals provided and this view was supported in the comments received in the recent questionnaire. The menu appeared nutritious and balanced and variations from the menu are available on request. Discussion with the cook confirmed that residents’ likes and dislikes are known and recorded and any special diets are catered for. The inspector observed part of the lunchtime meal over two days. Residents who required assistance with their meals were provided with support from staff in a discreet and sensitive manner. Residents are able to eat in one of the four dining rooms, in the lounges or in their own rooms if they want to. Kings Court Care Centre DS0000015920.V304680.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 15 Complaints and Protection The intended outcomes for Standards 16 - 18 are: 16. 17. 18. Service users and their relatives and friends are confident that their complaints will be listened to, taken seriously and acted upon. Service users’ legal rights are protected. Service users are protected from abuse. The Commission considers Standards 16 and 18 the key standards to be inspected at least once during a 12 month period. JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for the following standard(s): 16 and 18 Residents and relatives’ complaints are taken seriously and promptly investigated. As far as possible, residents are protected from abuse. The quality in this outcome area is good. This judgement has been made from evidence gathered before, during and after the visit to this service. EVIDENCE: Copies of the complaint procedure are available in the service user guide and in each bedroom. A complaint record is kept. Three complaints had been received since December 2005 and the record indicated that the complaints had been dealt with promptly. Residents spoken to said that they would talk to the staff or manager if they had any complaints, as did the relatives spoken with. Two comment cards received from relatives indicated that they were aware of the complaint procedure but neither have had to make a complaint. Comments contained in the annual questionnaire relating to the handling of issues or concerns included “All our concerns are discussed and problems identified and rectified immediately” and “Always been satisfactory”. The manager has frequently demonstrated a good awareness of adult protection procedures along with a genuine commitment and openness when working with the relevant agencies. Copies of the local procedures for reporting allegations of abuse were available on each unit and staff spoken to during the inspection were aware of these. Review of training records indicated that staff received training about abuse awareness and a review of staff employment documentation indicated that procedures for the protection of Kings Court Care Centre DS0000015920.V304680.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 16 residents had been carried out, including Criminal Record Bureau (CRB) and Protection of Vulnerable Adults (POVA) checks. Kings Court Care Centre DS0000015920.V304680.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 17 Environment The intended outcomes for Standards 19 – 26 are: 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. Service users live in a safe, well-maintained environment. Service users have access to safe and comfortable indoor and outdoor communal facilities. Service users have sufficient and suitable lavatories and washing facilities. Service users have the specialist equipment they require to maximise their independence. Service users’ own rooms suit their needs. Service users live in safe, comfortable bedrooms with their own possessions around them. Service users live in safe, comfortable surroundings. The home is clean, pleasant and hygienic. The Commission considers Standards 19 and 26 the key standards to be inspected at least once during a 12 month period. JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for the following standard(s): 19,21,24 and 26 The home is well maintained and there are enough bathrooms and toilets for residents. Bedrooms and communal areas are generally clean and tidy but some improvement is required in other areas, such as toilets and sluices. Not all the beds on the dementia unit are suitable and may pose a risk to residents and staff. The quality in this outcome area is adequate. This judgement has been made from evidence gathered before, during and after the visit to this service. EVIDENCE: The inspector viewed all areas of the home, including residents’ bedrooms and communal living areas. The home appeared well maintained and generally free from offensive odour. Furnishings and fittings were of a good standard and there had been some improvements to the décor of the home. There are sufficient, accessible bathing, showering and toilet facilities and all rooms have en suite toilets. Not all toilets and sluice rooms were cleaned to a satisfactory standard. Kings Court Care Centre DS0000015920.V304680.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 18 Many of the beds on the dementia unit are of a non-adjustable, low divan type. These are unsuitable for those residents with complex manual handling needs and some are in a poor condition. Staff had raised concerns about the possibility of back injuries at a health and safety meeting in November 2006 and also commented on how difficult the beds were to keep clean and hygienic. Many of the carpets in the ground floor bedrooms were stained and required cleaning and action had been taken by the second day of the inspection with regard to this. The laundry was clean and the equipment working. Comments received indicated that not everybody was happy with the laundry service and the manager was aware of this following responses received in the homes questionnaire. The kitchen was generally clean and food hygiene procedures were in place. Some fridges in the unit kitchenettes required cleaning. (Since this inspection the provider has informed the inspector that five profile beds, a new carpet shampooer and vacuum cleaner have been purchased). Kings Court Care Centre DS0000015920.V304680.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 19 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): 27,28,29 and 30. The numbers and skill mix of staff appears to meet the residents’ needs, although some comments received indicate that a review care staff levels would help identify any problem areas. Staff are well trained and competent and the residents are protected by the homes recruitment practice. The quality in this outcome area is good. This judgement has been made from evidence gathered before, during and after the visit to this service. EVIDENCE: Staffing levels on both days of this unannounced inspection appeared to be enough to meet residents’ needs and call bells were answered without any undue delays. Duty rotas indicated compliance with the homes minimum staffing notice. The levels of catering and domestic staff also appeared to be satisfactory. Residents spoken to who were able to offer an opinion said they felt staffing levels were satisfactory, although staff were reported to be busy during the mornings. One relative stated that they felt that staff were “very busy” and another commented that “--- many times there is not enough staff to cope”. Another relative felt that there were enough staff members on duty when they visited. However both relatives who had filled in comment cards had indicated that they felt there were not always sufficient numbers of staff on duty. Further comments contained in the annual questionnaire also indicated that some people had concerns at times. Kings Court Care Centre DS0000015920.V304680.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 20 The manager felt that staffing levels were appropriate but was aware of some recent problems exacerbated by the fact that the home no longer employed nurses undergoing adaptation training; however she stated that this had now “stabilised”. A review of current care staffing levels may indicate if this is an ongoing or temporary problem. The recruitment records of four recently recruited staff members were reviewed. Criminal Record Bureau (CRB) checks had been obtained or applied for and references and Protection of Vulnerable Adults (POVA) checks had been obtained prior to the person starting employment in all cases. Other documentation required was in place. The inspector reviewed the training arrangements and records with the deputy manager, Donna Thompson, who is also the training coordinator. Life Style Care has a Training Director and the home has a specific budget for training. Training is available for nursing, care and support staff and individual training records were kept. Training covered mandatory health and safety topics and appropriate subjects such as dementia awareness, abuse awareness, challenging behaviour and tissue viability. Training records indicate the staff receive induction training before commencing work in the home and the induction course is currently being reviewed to ensure that it meets the new standards recommended by Skills for Care. National Vocational Qualification (NVQ) training is available for care assistants and Mrs Thompson reported that 16 out of 28 care assistants had completed an NVQ and that a further three were currently undertaking one. Staff spoken to were positive about the quality of the training they had received. Kings Court Care Centre DS0000015920.V304680.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 21 Management and Administration The intended outcomes for Standards 31 – 38 are: 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. Service users live in a home which is run and managed by a person who is fit to be in charge, of good character and able to discharge his or her responsibilities fully. Service users benefit from the ethos, leadership and management approach of the home. The home is run in the best interests of service users. Service users are safeguarded by the accounting and financial procedures of the home. Service users’ financial interests are safeguarded. Staff are appropriately supervised. Service users’ rights and best interests are safeguarded by the home’s record keeping, policies and procedures. The health, safety and welfare of service users and staff are promoted and protected. The Commission considers Standards 31, 33, 35 and 38 the key standards to be inspected at least once during a 12 month period. JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for the following standard(s): 31,33,35 and 38 The registered manager is fit to run the home and does so effectively and in the best interests of its residents. Quality assurance systems are in place, although these could be enhanced by the introduction of regular residents and relatives meetings. The health, safety and welfare of residents and staff are promoted and residents’ financial interests are safeguarded. The quality in this outcome area is good. This judgement has been made from evidence gathered before, during and after the visit to this service. EVIDENCE: Helen Marshall, a registered nurse, has been the homes manager since January 2001. A deputy and an administrator support her in her role. She has completed the Registered Managers Award and is qualified, competent and experienced to run the home. Comments received about the manager in a recent questionnaire included “Very friendly and helpful, always willing to listen” and “very approachable”. Kings Court Care Centre DS0000015920.V304680.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 22 The quality assurance systems in the home were reviewed. The registered provider, Life Style Care, sends out annual questionnaire to residents and relatives. The last one had been sent out in October 2006. A summary of the comments received is sent to the manager, who stated she had taken action where suggestions to improve the service had been made. Residents and relatives meetings are not currently held and these should be considered in order to introduce a more regular opportunity for them to comment on the home. Regular staff meetings are held and recorded and a representative of Life Style Care carries out monthly visits and produces a report. The arrangements for handling service users money were checked and found to be satisfactory and secure. Bi-monthly audits are recorded and signed. No staff member is an appointee or advocate for residents’ finances. The home has a health and safety committee which meets every four months and minutes are produced. Heads of departments attend the meetings along with representatives from the nursing and dementia units. Staff training covered mandatory health and safety topics and the manager undertakes a monthly health and safety audit. Accidents are correctly recorded and the manager reviews accident reports and records any action taken. Hazardous substances were stored safely and staff are trained in there handling. Fire safety checks are undertaken and recorded. Hot water temperatures are checked and all essential equipment regularly serviced. Manual handling equipment is available. Kings Court Care Centre DS0000015920.V304680.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 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 3 4 3 X X N/A HEALTH AND PERSONAL CARE Standard No Score 7 2 8 3 9 2 10 3 11 X DAILY LIFE AND SOCIAL ACTIVITIES Standard No Score 12 2 13 3 14 3 15 3 COMPLAINTS AND PROTECTION Standard No Score 16 3 17 X 18 4 3 X 3 X X 2 X 2 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 3 X 3 X 3 X X 3 Kings Court Care Centre DS0000015920.V304680.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 OP8 Regulation 14 (2,a) Requirement The registered person shall ensure that the assessment of service users needs is kept under review. In particular: • Completion and review of fluid and nutritional charts. The registered person shall ensure that a record is kept in respect of the treatment provided to service users who have a pressure sore. The registered person must ensure that suitable arrangements are in place so that staff are able to administer medication in accordance with the prescriber’s instructions. In particular: • Clear instructions and records for ‘as required’ medication. • Written additions to the medication administration record should be signed and checked in accordance with the home’s policy. The registered person shall provide in rooms occupied by service users adequate furniture DS0000015920.V304680.R01.S.doc Timescale for action 01/12/06 2 OP8 17 (1,a) Schedule 3 (p) 13(2) 01/12/06 3 OP9 14/12/06 4 OP24 16 (2,c) 01/04/07 Kings Court Care Centre Version 5.2 Page 25 5 OP26 13 (3) and equipment suitable to their needs. In particular: • The provision of adjustable beds. The registered person shall make 01/12/06 suitable arrangements to prevent infection, toxic conditions and the spread of infection at the care home. In particular: • Ensuring toilets and sluice facilities are adequately cleaned. • Ensuring kitchenette fridges are adequately cleaned 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 2 3 Refer to Standard OP12 OP27 OP33 Good Practice Recommendations It is recommended that thought be given to increasing the staff hours available to support social activities. It is recommended that a review of current staffing levels be undertaken to ensure that levels are adequate at all times. It is recommended that residents and relatives meetings be introduced in order to enhance current quality assurance measures. Kings Court Care Centre DS0000015920.V304680.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 26 Commission for Social Care Inspection Chippenham Area Office Avonbridge House Bath Road Chippenham SN15 2BB 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 Kings Court Care Centre DS0000015920.V304680.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 27 - 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!