Inspection on 03/03/06 for Lower Ridge HFE

This inspection was carried out on 3rd March 2006.

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

Lower Ridge HFE 25/10/06

Lower Ridge HFE 20/09/05

Lower Ridge HFE 09/11/04

Lower Ridge HFE 14/06/04

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 Lower Ridge HFE Belverdere Road Burnley Lancashire BB10 4BQ Lead Inspector Mrs Marie Dickinson Unannounced Inspection 3rd March 2006 11:00 X10015.doc Version 1.40 Page 1 The Commission for Social Care Inspection aims to: • • • • Put the people who use social care first Improve services and stamp out bad practice Be an expert voice on social care Practise what we preach in our own organisation Reader Information Document Purpose Author Audience Further copies from Copyright Inspection Report CSCI General Public 0870 240 7535 (telephone order line) This report is copyright Commission for Social Care Inspection (CSCI) and may only be used in its entirety. Extracts may not be used or reproduced without the express permission of CSCI www.csci.org.uk Internet address Lower Ridge HFE DS0000035131.V287636.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. Lower Ridge HFE DS0000035131.V287636.R01.S.doc Version 5.1 Page 3 SERVICE INFORMATION Name of service Lower Ridge HFE Address Belverdere Road Burnley Lancashire BB10 4BQ 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) 01282 429020 01282 413180 Lancashire County Care Services Miss Eunice France Care Home 35 Category(ies) of Dementia (5), Dementia - over 65 years of age registration, with number (5), Mental Disorder, excluding learning of places disability or dementia - over 65 years of age (1), Old age, not falling within any other category (35) Lower Ridge HFE DS0000035131.V287636.R01.S.doc Version 5.1 Page 4 SERVICE INFORMATION Conditions of registration: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. The registered provider must at all times employ a qualified manager who is registered with the Commission for Social Care Inspection Within the overall registration of 35, a maximum of 35 service users who fall into the category of Older People Within the overall registration of 35, a maximum of 5 service users over the age of 65, who fall in the category of Dementia Elderly Wthin the overall registration of 35, a maximum of 5 service users who fall in the category of Dementia Within the overall registration of 35, a maximum of 1 named service user who falls into the category Mental Disorder (Elderly). When the named service user no longer requires this place, the Registered Provider must notify the Commission for Social Care Inspection 20th September 2005 Date of last inspection Brief Description of the Service: Lower Ridge is registered with the Commission for Social Care Inspection to provide personal care and accommodation for thirty- five people. The home is owned by Lancashire County Council and managed by Lancashire County Care Services. The property is a three storey building set back off a main road and on a bus route to Burnley. There are gardens to the side and rear that residents can use The garden at the rear has been created for the residents to enjoy with decking and raised flowerbeds. Accommodation is offered in single bedrooms and there are a number of lounges. There is a conservatory, visitor’s room, treatment room. he upper floors are accessed via a passenger lift. There are sufficient bathrooms and toilets, and various aids provided for residents throughout the home. Lower Ridge HFE DS0000035131.V287636.R01.S.doc Version 5.1 Page 5 SUMMARY This is an overview of what the inspector found during the inspection. This unannounced inspection was carried out on the 3rd and 8th March 2006. It is the second required statutory inspection carried out this year. The inspection involved getting information from staff records, care records and policies and procedures. It also involved talking to residents, staff on duty and the registered manager. Areas that needed to improve from the previous inspection were looked at for progress made. The home was assessed against the National Minimum Standards for Older People. Not all standards were assessed and this report should be read with the inspection report dated 20th September 2005 for the reader to have a complete overview of the home. What the service does well: Written guidelines were given to staff to help prepare for new admissions. Before people are admitted to the home information needed to give the right care for them is recorded. Staff knew the needs of residents and worked as key workers to a number of residents. This helped to personalise care. All the residents had the benefit of an additional care plan written specifically for personalised care needs during the night. Healthcare was monitored. Residents were generally happy with the carers and knew which staff member was their key worker. Key workers were described as ‘knowing what I want’ and ‘she’s very good’. Visitors were made welcome and the staff made themselves available to speak to them. Residents benefited having a preferred visitors list. Catering arrangements were good with choices and alternatives offered at every meal. Residents thought the meals were ‘very good’. Concerns were taken seriously and training, policies and procedures given to staff helped protect residents from abuse. Lower Ridge HFE DS0000035131.V287636.R01.S.doc Version 5.1 Page 6 Training was provided for staff and included topics such first aid, medication and infection control. The standard of training and commitment of the Lancashire County Care Services was very good. Staff showed they had a good knowledge in understanding the needs of older people. They were supervised in their work and teamwork was evident. Staff said they enjoyed their work. A good standard of hygiene was maintained and observed during inspection. Each resident was provided with pleasant clean accommodation they liked. They had a choice where to sit in the home and benefited the conservatory and enclosed garden area enjoyed during the warmer weather. There was a member of the management team on duty at all times, and staff also benefited having an area manager who visited the home every month. Residents had opportunities to influence the service provided and the newsletter published at the home kept them informed of events. Resident’s health, safety and welfare were considered, and staff worked with safe working practices. What has improved since the last inspection? What they could do better: To make sure resident’s needs are fully met, better liaising with health professionals is required to prevent people being discharged from hospital prior to the homes usual assessment used to decide whether the facilities and staffing levels in the home will meet their needs. Lower Ridge HFE DS0000035131.V287636.R01.S.doc Version 5.1 Page 7 The approach to care planning would benefit reviewing to make sure action required by staff give a consistent approach to the residents care. Accurate recording on sick residents fluid and food intake charts is advised to make sure problems can be easily identified. Activities for residents must improve and take into account their wishes. To keep the home clean and in a reasonable state of repair additional staff should be employed for this purpose. The ongoing problem of the hot water supply to one resident’s bedroom must be resolved. To make sure gaps in employment are explained properly, applicants for jobs should be asked to write this on their application form. This can be verified at interview. In addition to this the home is required to have a signed declaration on all application forms of people employed to confirm their mental and physical fitness. Sufficient staff must be employed to meet the needs of residents properly, to prevent stress amongst staff and to ensure residents are treated with respect and dignity. 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. Lower Ridge HFE DS0000035131.V287636.R01.S.doc Version 5.1 Page 8 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 Lower Ridge HFE DS0000035131.V287636.R01.S.doc Version 5.1 Page 9 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): 2,3,4,5 Admission procedures for staff to follow were very good. Usual practice meant people benefited having proper assessments, visits to the home and short stays offered. Assessments contained sufficient information to help make sure the home had the right facilities and staff to meet needs. Residents were given terms and conditions of residence. Staff were trained to care for people with special needs such as dementia. Advice was taken from other professionals to make sure all care needs were met properly. EVIDENCE: Before people are admitted to the home the usual procedure is to visit the person referred to the home. This is to allow the manager to assess if there is sufficient staff, equipment and other resources required to meet the needs of the prospective resident. Records showed this was usual practice. One resident had however, been discharged from hospital before this had been arranged and on admission to the home was very poorly. As a result of this, advice and support by the residents doctor and district nurse was required. Lower Ridge HFE DS0000035131.V287636.R01.S.doc Version 5.1 Page 10 Anyone considering living in the home is given an opportunity to visit and look at the home and meet the staff. Sometimes this is not possible and a representative of the resident is invited to look around on their behalf. Residents placed in the home by the local authority were given a contract for financial arrangements for payment in addition to terms and conditions of residence issued by Lancashire County Care Services. Staff had working guidelines to follow when preparing for and admission. These included checklists for the resident’s bedrooms and personal belongings. Senior management were on duty in the home at all times and available to advise staff and deal with any emergency that may arise. The range of needs for residents had been considered by training provided which included for example basic care principles and dementia care. Records showed that staff acted upon the changing needs of residents and they consulted with other professionals for advice. Staff working in the home were mainly long serving. Lower Ridge HFE DS0000035131.V287636.R01.S.doc Version 5.1 Page 11 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): 7,8,10 Care plans were used to help staff to provide personal care for residents. The plans were basic but information recorded showed care needs were identified. Clearer guidance was required for residents to fully benefit having the right approach to care. Reviewing care needs were carried out regularly and residents had been included in the process. Residents were satisfied their care needs were met and they considered staff were respectful to them. EVIDENCE: Residents had care plans which referred to residents assessed need. They were used to help staff personalise care for each person. Although brief they included health, personal and social care needs. A brief record made of residents past history, helped staff to understand people as individuals, their likes and dislikes. The plan also showed what help was required such as when getting up, or if help was needed for walking and bathing. In addition to the daily care plan each resident had a night care plan that showed how care was to be provided during the night. These were good. Lower Ridge HFE DS0000035131.V287636.R01.S.doc Version 5.1 Page 12 The whole approach to care planning should be reviewed to assist staff in being able to write more effectively. For example in writing choices for daily living, when writing ‘needs encouragement’, this should explain what was meant. In addition to this when people unable to express themselves are assessed for example ‘resists support’ and ‘resists baths’, managing this should be explained. Staff said they were involved with care planning and work to a key worker system whereby they take on particular responsibilities for a number of individual residents. The system currently used involved a number of staff supervised in this role by a member of the management team. There was evidence that residents were involved in reviews of their care, which were done regularly, and care plans changed when resident’s needs changed. Individual residents knew who their key worker was and they were happy with this arrangement. Residents who could give their opinions and views on the kind of care they wanted and needed, said ‘most of the staff were good’ and were generally happy with how they were helped. Entries in daily records showed residents received personal care and additional specialist support where needed. This included the resident’s healthcare and mental health care needs. Visits from a chiropodist, district nurse and their doctor were evident. Residents also confirmed this. Pressure care was promoted and pressure-relieving aids were used where needed. Nutritional charts were kept where required, however they not always maintained properly. Residents confirmed staff in the home were mindful of their privacy, for instance they kept the bathroom and toilet doors locked when they were helping them. They also confirmed staff would knock on bedroom doors and wait to be invited in. This was also observed during inspection. When asked, relatives visiting said they were kept informed of matters that involved their relative. Good practice was observed in confidentiality of information. Records were kept secure in the office. Information to keep residents safe had been completed. This meant staff had guidance to follow when seeing to residents needs such as ‘two staff to assist when walking’. Lower Ridge HFE DS0000035131.V287636.R01.S.doc Version 5.1 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): 12,13,14,15 Resident’s lifestyle was to near to their expectations and they felt generally satisfied with their care in the home. Activities were limited. Visitors to the home were made welcome. Catering arrangements were satisfactory. EVIDENCE: Residents talked about their life in the home. They gave examples of choices they had for example they said there were no rules imposed on them such as when they went to bed or got up in the morning. One resident said ‘after five or six years I’m quite at home, everything is alright.’ Some residents talked about their family visiting. Staff were thoughtful offering drinks and were friendly. One resident said ‘her nephew had bought her flowers’ staff had made him a drink and arranged her flowers for her. Visitors at the home said they visited when they wanted. Residents could control what visitors they received and had a preferred visitors list completed. This helped to identify any person the resident did not want to see. Residents gave mixed views about activities. There was an overall opinion that these were not very good. Comments included ‘we don’t do nothing, I just sit in my chair, I can’t walk’ and ‘living here is not what I thought’. The residents Lower Ridge HFE DS0000035131.V287636.R01.S.doc Version 5.1 Page 14 considered staff gave them as much time as they could but said they were ‘stretched’. It was clear from conversation with residents, staff devoted as much time as possible, sometimes in their own time to provide residents with extra activities such as shopping and festive celebrations. Staff said they did activities with residents when they could and tried to spend time with them. Staff were not given sufficient time to help residents enjoy meaningful pastimes according to their wishes. Comments from residents indicated the food was up to their expectations. They said they were given plenty of choices at meals and some said if they did not like the choices offered the cook would provide an alternative. The cook discussed menus with them. Staff were observed offering support to those people who could not manage to eat their meal without assistance. Fresh fruit was included in the menus and available in between meals. Lower Ridge HFE DS0000035131.V287636.R01.S.doc Version 5.1 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): 16,18 The complaints procedure was clear and accessible for residents and visitors to the home such as relatives. Residents were encouraged to express any concern or suggestion that was acted upon promptly. There were policies and procedures in place to ensure a proper response to any suspicion or allegation of abuse, and resident’s financial affairs being protected. EVIDENCE: Residents said they knew who to speak to if they had any concerns. There was a complaints procedure for them to use. This was given to residents when they came to live at the home. Residents said they generally had no complaints against the staff. There had been no complaints received at the Commission. The manager dealt with any complaint received at the home according to the procedure. Staff working at the home said they were aware of the abuse policies and procedures, which included a whistle blowing policy. Staff said they had regular contact with the area manager of Lancashire County Care Services and could approach her with any problem. Staff contracts precluded them from financial reward or assisting in or benefiting from the service users’ wills. Lower Ridge HFE DS0000035131.V287636.R01.S.doc Version 5.1 Page 16 Environment The intended outcomes for Standards 19 – 26 are: 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. Service users live in a safe, well-maintained environment. Service users have access to safe and comfortable indoor and outdoor communal facilities. Service users have sufficient and suitable lavatories and washing facilities. Service users have the specialist equipment they require to maximise their independence. Service users’ own rooms suit their needs. Service users live in safe, comfortable bedrooms with their own possessions around them. Service users live in safe, comfortable surroundings. The home is clean, pleasant and hygienic. The Commission considers Standards 19 and 26 the key standards to be inspected at least once during a 12 month period. JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for the following standard(s): 19,20,22,23,24,26 The home was maintained to a relatively good standard, and residents lived in a comfortable and homely environment. Improvements are required in response time to general maintenance. A good standard of hygiene was achieved. EVIDENCE: Lower Ridge is a purpose built residential home near to Burnley town centre. The property is a three storey building set back off a main road and on a bus route to the town centre. There are gardens to the side and rear that residents can walk around. The enclosed garden at the rear has been created with the residents in mind, with scented plants, decking and raised flowerbeds. It is safe for residents with dementia to walk out freely and enjoy this area without staff having to escort them. As discussed in the previous inspections, the manager said that general maintenance management remains with maintenance personnel employed by Lancashire County Care Services. As a result of this small maintenance Lower Ridge HFE DS0000035131.V287636.R01.S.doc Version 5.1 Page 17 problems in daily living remain low priority, and response time not always acceptable for residents affected by these, such as a poor hot water supply to one bedroom and cold radiators in another. This was noticeable by residents during inspection, who raised their concerns. The home was furnished to a relatively good standard. Residents said they liked their bedrooms, and the new furniture provided. They could lock their door safely and those who could manage a key were provided with one. The residents said they felt safe as staff could be summoned for assistance. All rooms were fitted with a call bell for this purpose. As one resident said ‘I can call for help anytime, they will come’. Residents could use a passenger lift to go upstairs. Some said they used this. One resident recently admitted to the home said it was ‘handy’ if she felt tired. A relatively good standard of hygiene was seen throughout the home. Staff were employed for this purpose. A carpet cleaner had been purchased to deal with the problem of odour control. Personal aids were kept in resident’s bedrooms, and some pieces were stored in the stairwell safely away from residents. Bathing facilities were satisfactory, and hot water taps had safety valves fitted to prevent residents being accidentally scalded. All radiators throughout the home were covered with protective guards. Laundry facilities were good and equipped with washing machines designed for heavy soiling and infection control. Resident’s clothes were laundered with care. There were no complaints about the standard of this service from residents. Lower Ridge HFE DS0000035131.V287636.R01.S.doc Version 5.1 Page 18 Staffing The intended outcomes for Standards 27 – 30 are: 27. 28. 29. 30. Service users’ needs are met by the numbers and skill mix of staff. Service users are in safe hands at all times. Service users are supported and protected by the home’s recruitment policy and practices. Staff are trained and competent to do their jobs. The Commission consider all the above are key standards to be inspected at least once during a 12 month period. JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for the following standard(s): 27,28,29,30 The level of staffing did not meet with residents needs. Recruitment and selection procedures were mostly satisfactory. Residents had confidence in the staff working at the home. Training provided and attended by staff was very good and offered a wide range of topics. EVIDENCE: The home was fully staffed during the inspection. The current level of staffing however needs to be reviewed. The amount of time spent by care staff covering laundry duties left a noticeable gap in essential time required for residents needs being fully met. This was evident from residents accounts of how ‘busy’ staff were and having ‘to wait’ for assistance. The residents were very happy with most of the staff in the home. Their overall opinion showed staff as a ‘caring’ ‘hardworking’ team ‘run off their feet’. There was the odd occasion when they felt staff attitude could improve when helping them. One resident thought this was because ‘ as they have so much work to do and not enough staff on duty, it was hardly surprising’. Lancashire County Care Services must maintain sufficient numbers of staff on duty to meet all the needs of the residents. This includes keeping the home to a satisfactory level of hygiene; sufficient care staff and keeping up with general basic repairs. For example the home would benefit a kitchen assistant, a laundry domestic and handyman employed for these purposes. The number of Lower Ridge HFE DS0000035131.V287636.R01.S.doc Version 5.1 Page 19 care hours spent in the laundry must be matched with additional care hours. This is to make sure all residents’ needs are met in a satisfactory manner. Staff files showed how recruitment procedures had been carried out. The application form completed by new employees had no declaration signed by them regarding their mental and physical health. The manager said medical questionnaires were held at head office. References had been applied for and Criminal Record Bureaux (CRB) and Protection of Vulnerable Adults (POVA) check had been obtained prior to staff working in the home. Information disclosed on CRB checks is not made available for the manager. In addition candidates completing application forms should record information regarding gaps in employment. This can then be verified for accuracy during interview. All staff had attended basic training. The percentage of staff having completed NVQ level 2 and above remained very high. Staff enjoyed their work and there was an overall opinion they would like to spend more time with residents. Lower Ridge HFE DS0000035131.V287636.R01.S.doc Version 5.1 Page 20 Management and Administration The intended outcomes for Standards 31 – 38 are: 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. Service users live in a home which is run and managed by a person who is fit to be in charge, of good character and able to discharge his or her responsibilities fully. Service users benefit from the ethos, leadership and management approach of the home. The home is run in the best interests of service users. Service users are safeguarded by the accounting and financial procedures of the home. Service users’ financial interests are safeguarded. Staff are appropriately supervised. Service users’ rights and best interests are safeguarded by the home’s record keeping, policies and procedures. The health, safety and welfare of service users and staff are promoted and protected. The Commission considers Standards 31, 33, 35 and 38 the key standards to be inspected at least once during a 12 month period. JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for the following standard(s): 31,32,33,35,36,37,38 The home was generally well organised and managed efficiently. Guidance and support was given to staff by the management team in the home and from the area manager of Lancashire County Care Services. Residents, relatives and other relative people influenced how the home was run. The management team benefited additional support for record keeping. Good practice was observed in safe working procedures. The health safety and welfare of residents and staff was promoted and protected. EVIDENCE: Lancashire County Care Services as Registered Provider have the overall responsibility in the management of the home. Senior management visit the home unannounced every month and send a report of this visit to the Commission. The role definition of the registered manager outlines the responsibilities and expectations of this position. Lower Ridge HFE DS0000035131.V287636.R01.S.doc Version 5.1 Page 21 The means of seeking residents and staff views about the home was both formal and informal with resident’s, staff and management meetings Staff and residents confirmed this. Views of residents and relatives from anonymous questionnaires were also sought. The findings of quality of care and facilities survey was published and made available for people to look at. Staff confirmed they received routine formal supervision. During supervision they were given an opportunity to discuss issues relevant to their care practice and the work involved in meeting standards. Residents and relatives expressed mainly general satisfaction about the care and facilities in the home. They felt their views ‘were listened to’. The quarterly newsletter that was published by the home was informative, friendly and easy to read. The guidance given to staff for work routines were good, and staff teamwork was evident. A member of staff has been appointed to support the management team with record keeping. This support was appreciated and files, policies and procedures were organised for easier reference. The health, safety and welfare of residents and staff had been considered. Staff were instructed in safe working practices such as moving and handling residents, first aid and fire procedures. In addition to this regular monitoring of water temperatures and fire safety checks and drills were regularly carried out. Cleaning products were stored and used correctly and contractors employed to service essential appliances such as portable electrical appliances. Lower Ridge HFE DS0000035131.V287636.R01.S.doc Version 5.1 Page 22 SCORING OF OUTCOMES This page summarises the assessment of the extent to which the National Minimum Standards for Care Homes for Older People have been met and uses the following scale. The scale ranges from: 4 Standard Exceeded 2 Standard Almost Met (Commendable) (Minor Shortfalls) 3 Standard Met 1 Standard Not Met (No Shortfalls) (Major Shortfalls) “X” in the standard met box denotes standard not assessed on this occasion “N/A” in the standard met box denotes standard not applicable CHOICE OF HOME Standard No Score 1 2 3 4 5 6 ENVIRONMENT Standard No Score 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 X 3 2 3 3 N/A HEALTH AND PERSONAL CARE Standard No Score 7 2 8 2 9 X 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 3 2 3 X 3 3 3 X 3 STAFFING Standard No Score 27 1 28 4 29 2 30 3 MANAGEMENT AND ADMINISTRATION Standard No 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 Score 3 3 3 X 3 3 3 3 Lower Ridge HFE DS0000035131.V287636.R01.S.doc Version 5.1 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 OP3 Regulation 14(1) Requirement The registered person shall not admit anyone to the home before an assessment of need is carried out and enough information obtained to make sure the home is suitable for the purpose of meeting the residents’ needs. Improvement in activities is required for residents individually and as a group. The registered provider must make sure all repairs required in the home are done within a reasonable timescale. Previous timescale for action 14/06/04 not fully met. There must be sufficient care staff on duty at all times and sufficient staff to make sure the home is clean and maintained properly. Previous timescale for action 14/06/04 not fully met. The registered manager must make sure staff are helped to maintain professional relationships with residents. Application forms must include a DS0000035131.V287636.R01.S.doc Timescale for action 08/03/06 2. 3. OP12 OP19 16(2)(m) (n) 23(b) 30/04/06 08/03/06 4. OP27 18(1)(a) 30/04/06 5. OP27 12(5) 08/03/06 6. OP29 Schedule 30/04/06 Page 24 Lower Ridge HFE Version 5.1 2 statement from the employee as to their physical and mental health. 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 4. 5 6 7. Refer to Standard OP7 OP7 OP8 OP24 OP27 OP27 OP29 Good Practice Recommendations It is recommended care plans be better detailed for staff guidance. It is recommended daily living plans detail residents support required better. It is recommended fluid and food intake charts used when necessary, be kept accurate and up to date. The hot water supply to one bedroom identified during inspection required improving. It is recommended a person be employed to deal with the large amount of laundry in the home. It is recommended a handyman be employed in the home for routine daily maintenance. It is recommended that job application forms request the applicant explain gaps in employment. Lower Ridge HFE DS0000035131.V287636.R01.S.doc Version 5.1 Page 25 Commission for Social Care Inspection East Lancashire Area Office 1st Floor, Unit 4 Petre Road Clayton Business Park Accrington BB5 5JB 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 Lower Ridge HFE DS0000035131.V287636.R01.S.doc Version 5.1 Page 26 - 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!