Inspection on 26/06/07 for Kingsfield Care Home

This inspection was carried out on 26th June 2007.

CSCI has not published a star rating for this report, though using similar criteria we estimate that the report is Poor. 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. These are things the inspector asked to be changed, but found they had not done. The inspector also made 10 statutory requirements (actions the home must comply with) as a result of this inspection.

Other inspections for this house

Kingsfield Care Home 27/05/09

Kingsfield Care Home 02/07/08

Kingsfield Care Home 21/11/07

Kingsfield Care Home 25/01/07

Kingsfield Care Home 19/04/06

Kingsfield Care Home 17/11/05

Similar services:

Hillside

Applegarth

122 Scorer Street

Jubilee Villa Care Home

Thornham Grove

Beech Lodge

8 Thorndale Road (Homefield College)

Hunter`s Lodge

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

CARE HOME ADULTS 18-65 Kingsfield Care Home 23 High Street Clay Cross Chesterfield Derbyshire S45 9DX Lead Inspector Rose Veale Unannounced Inspection 26th June 2007 09:45 Kingsfield Care Home DS0000063894.V344157.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 Kingsfield Care Home DS0000063894.V344157.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. Kingsfield Care Home DS0000063894.V344157.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 3 SERVICE INFORMATION Name of service Kingsfield Care Home Address 23 High Street Clay Cross Chesterfield Derbyshire S45 9DX 01246 861505 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) Kingsfield Care Homes Ltd Vacancy Care Home 9 Category(ies) of Learning disability (9) registration, with number of places Kingsfield Care Home DS0000063894.V344157.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 4 SERVICE INFORMATION Conditions of registration: Date of last inspection 25th January 2007 Brief Description of the Service: Kingsfield provides personal care and accommodation for up to 9 adults with learning disabilities. The home is located in the village of Clay Cross, near Chesterfield, close to local shops and amenities. The home is a converted domestic property with accommodation over two storeys. There are seven single bedrooms and one double bedroom, a large lounge and separate dining room. There are separate kitchen and laundry facilities of a domestic scale and a large attractive garden to the rear of the home with a small garden and car parking space to the front and side of the home. Information about the home, including CSCI inspection reports, is available from the provider or acting manager. The fees at the home are £325.05 per week. This information was given by a senior care assistant at the home on 6th July 2007. Kingsfield Care Home DS0000063894.V344157.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 5 SUMMARY This is an overview of what the inspector found during the inspection. The inspection visit was unannounced and took place over 5 hours. The inspection visit focused on assessing compliance to requirements made at the previous inspection and on assessing all the key standards. There were 8 residents accommodated in the home on the day of the inspection. 2 residents and 2 staff were spoken with during the visit. The relatives of 2 residents were spoken with by telephone after the inspection visit. The acting manager was available and helpful throughout the inspection visit. Some residents were unable to contribute directly to the inspection process because of communication difficulties, but they were observed during the visit to see how well their needs were met by staff. Records were examined, including care records, staff records, maintenance, and health and safety records. Some areas of the building were seen to assess compliance to requirements made at the last inspection. At the last key inspection in January 2007 the overall rating for the home was poor and so the home was included in the CSCI improvement strategy. A management review was held with the inspector and regulation manager, and then a meeting with the responsible individual for the service, Jayraj Sisodia. The providers were required to produce an improvement plan detailing how they were going to make the necessary changes to comply with the regulations and improve outcomes for residents at the home. The improvement plan was produced in the required timescale and 4 of the 5 of the requirements made were met. However, there were still issues with the appointment of a permanent registered manager and with the general management of the home. What the service does well: What has improved since the last inspection? Kingsfield Care Home DS0000063894.V344157.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 6 Care plans had been reviewed and rewritten since the inspection in January 2007. Several requirements made about improving the environment of the home had been met. 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. Kingsfield Care Home DS0000063894.V344157.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 7 DETAILS OF INSPECTOR FINDINGS CONTENTS Choice of Home (Standards 1–5) Individual Needs and Choices (Standards 6-10) Lifestyle (Standards 11-17) Personal and Healthcare Support (Standards 18-21) Concerns, Complaints and Protection (Standards 22-23) Environment (Standards 24-30) Staffing (Standards 31-36) Conduct and Management of the Home (Standards 37 – 43) Scoring of Outcomes Statutory Requirements Identified During the Inspection Kingsfield Care Home DS0000063894.V344157.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 8 Choice of Home The intended outcomes for Standards 1 – 5 are: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Prospective service users have the information they need to make an informed choice about where to live. Prospective users’ individual aspirations and needs are assessed. Prospective service users know that the home that they will choose will meet their needs and aspirations. Prospective service users have an opportunity to visit and to “test drive” the home. Each service user has an individual written contract or statement of terms and conditions with the home. The Commission consider Standard 2 the key standard to be inspected. JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for the following standard(s): 2 Quality in this outcome area is adequate. This judgement has been made using available evidence including a visit to this service. There was sufficient assessment information to ensure that residents’ needs could be met at the home. EVIDENCE: The care records of 3 residents were examined. There had been no admissions to the home since the previous inspection in January 2007. All 3 records included an assessment made by Social Services staff and also by staff at the home when the resident was first admitted. In 2 of the records seen, the assessment information had not been reviewed or updated since 2005. All 3 records had an up to date care plan produced from the assessment information. Kingsfield Care Home DS0000063894.V344157.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 9 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 and 9 Quality in this outcome area is adequate. This judgement has been made using available evidence including a visit to this service. Although improvements had been made, the care plans did not have sufficient detail to ensure that residents’ needs and choices were agreed and fully met. EVIDENCE: Each of the 3 care records seen had a care plan that had been written since the previous inspection in January 2007. The care plans included the personal preferences of residents regarding daily routines and the support required from staff. In some instances, the care plans lacked detail. For example, one resident needed some assistance with mobility according to their assessment, but this was not included on their care plan; another resident had recently had significant health problems but there was no care plan relating to this. The care plans often had details of two assessed needs on one page. This meant that the plan was not always easy to follow, and also that there was a limited amount of information that could be included. Kingsfield Care Home DS0000063894.V344157.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 10 There was no indication in the care records that residents were involved in developing care plans. The acting manager said that the new care plans had been discussed with each resident. One resident spoken with was aware of their care plan. There were risk assessments in place in the records seen. Some of the risk assessments had not been reviewed or updated since 2004 or 2005. Some risk assessments showed a lack of understanding of the principles of risk assessment and included information more appropriate to a care plan. The acting manager acknowledged that she had limited experience in developing care plans and risk assessments and had not received specific training in this area. Information about advocacy services was available to residents and their representatives. There had been residents’ meetings facilitated by the advocacy service. One relative spoken with was unaware that the advocacy service was involved at the home. There was some evidence that residents were involved in some decision making about the home, such as day to day living and social activities. Kingsfield Care Home DS0000063894.V344157.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 11 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 and 17 Quality in this outcome area is adequate. This judgement has been made using available evidence including a visit to this service. There were opportunities for residents to take part in activities in and out of the home so that the lifestyle offered generally met their expectations. EVIDENCE: All of the residents attended day centres and / or adult education classes during the week. There were details of activities offered to residents and records of activities residents had taken part in. The notes of residents meetings showed that activities, outings and holidays were discussed. One resident spoken with said they enjoyed going shopping locally and in Chesterfield, and also having meals out. Two residents said they had enjoyed a recent day trip to Scarborough. On the day of the inspection visit, there were 3 residents at home, watching television and helping with domestic tasks. Kingsfield Care Home DS0000063894.V344157.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 12 As found at the previous inspection in January 2007, the home’s vehicle was not being used. This was said to be because there were only 1 or 2 staff who could drive the vehicle and they were not sure whether the insurance was valid for them. Residents paid £10 per week for transport provided by the home. The acting manager said that the home had an account with a local taxi firm and that this paid for directly by the providers. From discussion with residents, relatives and staff, it appeared that taxis were generally used for attending appointments. It was commented that residents were not getting out and about as much as they had done when the vehicle was being used. For example, residents used to do the weekly shopping with staff using the vehicle, but this was not feasible by taxi and so the shopping was ordered on-line and delivered. As noted at the previous inspection, there was an extension being built to the back of the home. As a result, there were piles of rubble restricting access for residents to the back garden. There was a risk assessment in place for residents using the back garden stating that this could only be with staff assistance and supervision. It was commented that residents were unhappy about the situation as they had previously enjoyed using the garden in good weather and now felt restricted. The care records included details of residents’ families. Residents’ bedrooms seen had photographs of family members and friends. Relatives spoken with said they were made welcome by staff when visiting the home and that family contact was encouraged and supported. Routines at the home appeared reasonably relaxed and flexible. One resident spoken with had enjoyed a ‘lie-in’ that morning. It was observed that residents appeared comfortable and settled at the home, with obvious good rapport between residents and staff. Residents’ food likes and dislikes were noted in the care records. Menus and meals were discussed at residents meetings. Residents spoken with said they liked the meals at the home. Kingsfield Care Home DS0000063894.V344157.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 13 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 and 20 Quality in this outcome area is adequate. This judgement has been made using available evidence including a visit to this service. Residents’ basic personal and healthcare needs were generally adequately met. EVIDENCE: There were details in the care records seen of the input of healthcare professionals, such as GP, chiropodist and dentist. There was evidence that residents were referred promptly for medical attention. The care plans seen had some details of how residents preferred to be supported by staff. However, as not all assessed areas of need were included in the care plans, it was not clear that residents needs were fully met. Relatives spoken with felt that residents basic needs were met, but emotional and social needs were not always met. It was clear from discussion with relatives and staff that staff were knowledgeable about the needs and preferences of residents. There were satisfactory systems in place for the storage and safe-handling of medication. Most staff had received appropriate training about the safe Kingsfield Care Home DS0000063894.V344157.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 14 administration of medication, and training had been arranged for 2 staff who had not had it. The records seen were correctly completed. There was no risk assessment or care plan in place for a resident who wished to take responsibility for their night-time medication. Kingsfield Care Home DS0000063894.V344157.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 15 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 and 23 Quality in this outcome area is adequate. This judgement has been made using available evidence including a visit to this service. The systems in place and staff awareness were sufficient to ensure that residents were safeguarded and their complaints were listened to. EVIDENCE: The complaints procedure was available in a format appropriate for residents. Records were seen of complaints raised by residents with details of the action taken. The outcome was not always recorded. Relatives spoken with said they were satisfied with the verbal response from the acting manager and other staff to concerns raised. It was commented that the providers had not responded directly to concerns raised by relatives, even when the concerns were in a letter addressed to the providers. Most of the staff at the home had received training in safeguarding vulnerable adults and staff spoken with were aware of the correct procedures to follow if abuse was suspected. Kingsfield Care Home DS0000063894.V344157.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 16 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 and 30 Quality in this outcome area is adequate. This judgement has been made using available evidence including a visit to this service. Although comfortable and homely, the home remained in need of general upgrading and refurbishing to provide residents with a more pleasant and safe environment. EVIDENCE: Since the previous inspection in January 2007, it appeared that no progress had been made to the new extension being built at the back of the home. Staff and relatives spoken with confirmed that no further building work had been carried out in 2007. The notes of residents’ meetings showed that they were disappointed and frustrated with the lack of progress on the new extension. There were unsightly piles of building rubble where a garage had been partly demolished and where the ground had been dug out for foundations. Access to the back garden was affected by the building work so that residents were unable to go into the back garden without the assistance and supervision of staff. Kingsfield Care Home DS0000063894.V344157.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 17 It was found that a fire exit door from the existing building was blocked from the outside by the building work, and allowed no escape route as this had been cut off by the new extension walls. There was no risk assessment in place, no evidence of consultation with the Fire and Rescue Service, and no alternative arrangements made for a safe escape route. The Fire and Rescue Service were informed of this situation by the inspector during the inspection visit. Parts of the building were seen to assess compliance to requirements made at the previous inspection. Of 5 requirements made about the environment of the home, 4 had been met. The outstanding requirement was to repair or replace a bedroom window to ensure the resident’s comfort. It was seen that the window had been taped around the edges to prevent draughts, but this prevented the window from being opened. The ground floor toilet and the staircase had been redecorated since the last inspection. As noted at previous inspections, the home was in need of general upgrading and refurbishment. Residents said they were pleased with their bedrooms. The home was clean and free from offensive odours on the day of the inspection visit. Relatives spoken with said the home was usually clean and fresh. Kingsfield Care Home DS0000063894.V344157.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 18 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 and 35 Quality in this outcome area is adequate. This judgement has been made using available evidence including a visit to this service. Staffing levels and staff training were sufficient to ensure that residents were adequately supported and their basic needs met. EVIDENCE: The staff rotas were seen and staffing levels were discussed with residents, relatives and staff. Residents and staff felt that staffing levels were usually sufficient to support residents. Staff said that additional staffing was provided when needed to take residents out on trips or for appointments. Relatives spoken with felt that if there were more staff on duty, residents would have more opportunities for activities. It was observed that staff were able to support residents in an unhurried way and had time to spend sitting and chatting with residents. Staff training records showed that staff had received training as required, such as fire safety, manual handling and food hygiene. As required at the last inspection, fire safety training had been carried out to ensure that night staff had training twice a year. Most of the care assistants had achieved National Kingsfield Care Home DS0000063894.V344157.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 19 Vocational Qualification (NVQ) Level 2. There was no evidence of an annual training plan for the home. The records of 3 members of staff were seen. The records all included a Criminal Records Bureau (CRB) disclosure, 2 written references and a photograph. The records did not include a form of identification, and 2 of the records did not include a full employment history as required. Kingsfield Care Home DS0000063894.V344157.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 20 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): Quality in this outcome area is poor. This judgement has been made using available evidence including a visit to this service. There was a lack of effective, pro-active management of the home so that residents’ rights, safety and welfare were not fully promoted or protected. EVIDENCE: At the previous inspection in January 2007, temporary management arrangements had been put in place by the responsible individual. The arrangements were that a care assistant at the home would be the acting manager until a permanent manager could be recruited. The acting manager was an experienced and competent carer, but had no supervisory or management experience, and little knowledge of the relevant National Minimum Standards and regulations. Kingsfield Care Home DS0000063894.V344157.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 21 It was found at this inspection visit that little progress had been made in finding a permanent manager for the home. The acting manager had worked hard to ensure that requirements made at the last inspection had been met. However, there were areas where the acting manager lacked knowledge and experience. For example, the acting manager was unaware of the requirement of Regulation 37 to notify CSCI of certain events at the home, such as the admission to hospital of a resident with a serious health problem. There were comments received that the acting manager appeared to have little support from the providers. The providers had not met the requirement made at the previous inspection for monthly visits to be carried out under Regulation 26. The acting manager and staff confirmed that the providers had visited the home, but there were no reports as required under Regulation 26. As found at previous inspections, there was no evidence of a formal quality assurance system or annual development plan at the home. There were gaps in health and safety records. The weekly fire alarm checks had not been carried out since May 2007. There was no evidence available that the fire alarm system had been serviced. The annual Landlord’s Gas Safety Certificate had expired in May 2007. As noted in the Environment section of this report, a fire exit door was unable to open and the escape route was blocked by the new extension. As required at the previous inspection, a magnetic catch to the fire door at the top of the main staircase had been repaired so that the door was held open unless the fire alarms were activated. It was found that this door was wedged open, even though the magnetic catch was working. The wedge was immediately removed by the acting manager. Kingsfield Care Home DS0000063894.V344157.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 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 2 3 X 4 X 5 X INDIVIDUAL NEEDS AND CHOICES Standard No 6 7 8 9 10 Score CONCERNS AND COMPLAINTS Standard No Score 22 2 23 2 ENVIRONMENT Standard No Score 24 2 25 X 26 X 27 X 28 X 29 X 30 3 STAFFING Standard No Score 31 X 32 3 33 X 34 2 35 3 36 X CONDUCT AND MANAGEMENT OF THE HOME Standard No 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 Score 2 3 X 2 X LIFESTYLES Standard No Score 11 X 12 2 13 3 14 X 15 3 16 3 17 3 PERSONAL AND HEALTHCARE SUPPORT Standard No 18 19 20 21 Score 2 2 2 X 1 X 1 X X 1 X Kingsfield Care Home DS0000063894.V344157.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 23 Are there any outstanding requirements from the last inspection? YES 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 YA6 Regulation 15(1)(2) Requirement Timescale for action 31/08/07 2. YA20 13(2) 3. YA34 19(1) 4. YA39 24(1)(2) Each resident must have a care plan that details how his or her assessed needs are to be met at the home. The care plan must be produced in consultation with residents, (or their representatives), and must be reviewed regularly. This will ensure that residents’ needs are met in the way they prefer. Original timescale 01/09/05 If a resident wishes to 31/07/07 administer their own medication, there must be a risk assessment and care plan in place detailing the support required to achieve this. This will ensure the safety of the resident. Staff records must include all 31/08/07 the documents and information required, including a form of identification and a full employment history. This will protect residents. Residents, (and / or their 31/10/07 representatives), must be involved in a system for DS0000063894.V344157.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 24 Kingsfield Care Home evaluating the quality of services provided at the home. This will ensure that residents’ views underpin review and development at the home. Original timescale 31/03/06 5. YA24 The window in the identified bedroom must be repaired or replaced to eliminate drafts and ensure the resident’s comfort. Original timescale 28/02/07 37 CSCI must be notified of all the specified events. This will protect residents. 26(2)(3)(4)(5) The registered provider must make unannounced visits to the home at least once a month, including the items specified in the regulation, to assess the standard of the service provided to residents. Original timescale 28/02/07 13(4)(c) A copy of the current Landlord’s Gas Safety Certificate must be sent to CSCI. This will ensure the safety of residents and staff. 13(4)(c) To ensure the safety of residents and staff, fire doors must not be wedged or propped open. 13(4)(c) To ensure the safety of residents and staff, evidence that the fire alarm system has been serviced must be sent to CSCI. 23(2)(b) 30/09/07 6. 7. YA37 YA39 31/08/07 31/08/07 8. YA42 31/08/07 9. YA42 17/07/07 10. YA42 31/08/07 RECOMMENDATIONS These recommendations relate to National Minimum Standards and are seen as good practice for the Registered Provider/s to consider carrying out. Kingsfield Care Home DS0000063894.V344157.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 25 No. 1. Refer to Standard YA6 Good Practice Recommendations Care plans and assessments should be reviewed at least every year, or when there is a change in the condition or circumstances of the resident. This will ensure that residents’ current needs are properly met. Residents and / or their representatives should be actively involved and consulted in planning care and support. This will ensure that care is provided to meet the needs and preferences of residents. Residents should be actively encouraged and supported to use advocacy services so they have access to independent help and advice. There should be individual risk assessments in place - such as for residents who smoke, or those who use the kitchen or laundry - to ensure the safety of residents. Arrangements should be made to ensure the home’s vehicle has drivers available to ensure that residents have more opportunities to go out. The outcome of complaints should be recorded so that residents know their concerns are taken seriously and acted upon. A staff training and development programme should be developed to ensure that staff fulfil the aims of the home and are able to meet the changing needs of residents. 2. YA6 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. YA7 YA9 YA14 YA22 YA35 Kingsfield Care Home DS0000063894.V344157.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 26 Commission for Social Care Inspection Derbyshire Area Office Cardinal Square Nottingham Road Derby DE1 3QT 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 Kingsfield Care Home DS0000063894.V344157.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!