Inspection on 20/12/06 for McNulty Court

This inspection was carried out on 20th December 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 no outstanding requirements from the previous inspection report, but made 4 statutory requirements (actions the home must comply with) as a result of this inspection.

Other inspections for this house

McNulty Court 06/11/07

McNulty Court 02/11/05

McNulty Court 09/08/05

McNulty Court 27/10/04

McNulty Court 29/04/04

McNulty Court 17/09/03

McNulty Court 25/04/03

McNulty Court 14/08/02

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

CARE HOME ADULTS 18-65 McNulty Court 16 McNulty Court Dudley Northumberland NE23 7HX Lead Inspector Dennis Bradley Unannounced Inspection 20 December 2006 & 3 January 2007 16:30 th rd McNulty Court DS0000000377.V302799.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 McNulty Court DS0000000377.V302799.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. McNulty Court DS0000000377.V302799.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 3 SERVICE INFORMATION Name of service McNulty Court Address 16 McNulty Court Dudley Northumberland NE23 7HX 0191 2500946 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) Northumberland, Tyne & Wear NHS Trust Miss Vivienne Josephine Susan Jeffrey Care Home 5 Category(ies) of Learning disability (5) registration, with number of places McNulty Court DS0000000377.V302799.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 4 SERVICE INFORMATION Conditions of registration: 1. 2. 3. The number of persons for whom residential accommodation with board and care is provided at any one time shall not exceed 5 men or women One Resident with dementia (DE), may be admitted, however no further admissions outside category LD to be admitted without consultation with CSCI. One person, LD over 65, may be admitted. Date of last inspection 2nd November 2005 Brief Description of the Service: McNulty Court is a purpose built home in Dudley that provides care and support for up to five people who have a learning disability. At the time of the inspection there were three ladies living at the home. One of these ladies also had a physical disability. The home is set in its own grounds and offers lots of space for the residents. Dudley is on the outskirts of North Tyneside and is conveniently placed for good road links to all parts of the area; this enables the residents to enjoy a good range of social leisure and educational opportunities. Copies of the Home’s Statement of Purpose and this Commission’s inspection reports were available in the Home. The current scale of charges was between £62.35 and £94.45 per week. McNulty Court DS0000000377.V302799.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 5 SUMMARY This is an overview of what the inspector found during the inspection. The inspection visit to 16 McNulty Court was unannounced and started at 16:30pm. The inspection involved two visits to the Home. The inspector met all three of the residents and spoke to a number of staff, including the Manager. Questionnaires were also sent to each resident and their relatives as well as to some of the professionals who have contact with the Home. One of the residents completed the questionnaire with the support of a member of staff. A response was received from two relatives and a GP. The Manager had also completed a pre-inspection questionnaire. During the visits to McNulty Court the inspector looked around the house and examined a sample of records. The Commission had not been notified of any incidents concerning the Home since the last inspection and it had not received any complaints or allegations about the Home. What the service does well: These are some of the things the Home did well: The relatives of one resident said: “we are delighted with the five star care and accommodation (and) the dedicated staff”. The relative of another said: “My sister continues to thrive at McNulty Court”. The needs and wishes of each resident had been assessed before they moved into the Home. This meant that staff knew about the needs of each person and what care and support they required. Suitable plans of care and risk assessments had been done for each resident. This meant staff had the information they needed to support each person and keep them safe. There were good arrangements for supporting residents to make decisions about their daily lives and preferences. People took part in appropriate activities in line with their needs and preferences. They were supported to maintain contact with their friends and family. The relationships between staff and residents were good and personal support was provided in such a way as to promote and protect residents’ privacy and dignity. The meals provided by the Home gave residents a varied, nutritious diet. McNulty Court DS0000000377.V302799.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 6 Plans of support had been done for each person. These helped ensure staff had a good understanding of each resident’s support needs. The arrangements for monitoring and meeting the health care needs of residents were satisfactory. This meant that people received the care and support they needed. The arrangements for the administration and recording of medication were also generally satisfactory and protected the residents. The arrangements for keeping the Home clean and tidy were satisfactory. The standard of the accommodation, décor and furniture and fittings was in good and provided residents with a comfortable place to live. There was a competent team of staff that had access to a range of training opportunities. This is important in ensuring that people are cared for by staff who have been trained in meeting their needs. The Manager was qualified and very experienced. This is important in ensuring that the Home is well run. What has improved since the last inspection? What they could do better: These are some of the things the Home could do better: Systems were in place for handling complaints and for protecting residents from abuse. Appropriate action had not been taken in response to an allegation and this could have placed a resident at risk. Training should be provided covers the specific conditions of residents so that people are cared for by staff who have had relevant training. Staff records need to be kept in the Home and not at the personnel department of the Trust. This would ensure they are readily available for inspection. McNulty Court DS0000000377.V302799.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 7 Arrangements need to be made to improve the consultation with residents, their families, friends and relevant people in the local community about the quality of care provided at the Home and how it should be developed. This is so that their views can contribute to the development of the service provided at McNulty Court. The arrangements for ensuring staff take part in regular fire drills needs to improve to better protect people from the risk of fire. 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. McNulty Court DS0000000377.V302799.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 8 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 McNulty Court DS0000000377.V302799.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 9 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): Standard 2. Quality in this outcome area was good This judgement has been made using available evidence including a visit to this service. The needs and wishes of each resident had been properly assessed before they moved into the Home. This meant that staff knew about the needs of each person and what care and support they required. EVIDENCE: There was evidence that before moving into the Home each person had been assessed by a range of professionals involved in their care. There had been an admission meeting for the most recent person to move into the Home. This meeting had been held to discuss and agree how their personal preferences would be met. Where necessary, for example as a result of the changing needs of the residents, reassessments had been carried out and care and support had been reviewed. A GP from the local health centre used by the residents confirmed that staff demonstrated a clear understanding of the care needs of the people living at the Home. McNulty Court DS0000000377.V302799.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 10 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): Standards 6, 7 & 9. Quality in this outcome area was good. This judgement has been made using available evidence including a visit to this service. Suitable plans of care and risk assessments had been done for each resident. This meant staff had the information they needed to support each person and keep them safe. The arrangements for supporting residents to make decisions about their daily lives and preferences were satisfactory. Each person was supported to take appropriate risks as part of the Home’s plans to promote as much independence as possible. EVIDENCE: The plans of care for each resident described their needs and preferences and what staff needed to do to care for and support each person. The plans included a range of risk assessments and these detailed the steps to be taken by staff to minimise the risks that had been identified. There were arrangements in place to regularly review and where necessary update each person’s plans of care and assessments. McNulty Court DS0000000377.V302799.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 11 Records indicated the involvement of relevant professionals and agencies such as GPs, opticians and dentists. Each resident had key members of staff who oversaw their plans of care. The plans were centred on each person’s needs and preferences. Staff supported and encouraged residents to make decisions about their daily lives and routines, such as what time they went to bed and what they wanted to eat or drink. Residents were also involved in choosing the décor of their bedrooms and the communal rooms. None of the residents were able to leave the Home without the support and supervision of staff. This was recorded in their care plans. Staff took steps to support each person to be independent while keeping them safe. McNulty Court DS0000000377.V302799.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 12 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 & 17. Quality in this outcome area was good. This judgement has been made using available evidence including a visit to this service. Suitable arrangements were in place for people to take part in appropriate activities in line with their needs and preferences. The arrangements for supporting residents to maintain contact with their friends and family were satisfactory. The relationships between staff and residents were good and personal support was provided in such a way as to promote and protect residents’ privacy and dignity. The meals provide by the Home were satisfactory and gave residents a varied, nutritious diet. EVIDENCE: The Manager had arranged for meetings to be held every three months with each resident and their relatives/representatives to discuss each person’s preferences regarding holidays and activities. A ‘Timetable of Activities’ had been completed for each person. Each person was supported to take part in a range of activities in a variety of settings. For example: keep fit classes, aromatherapy, arts and crafts and shopping. Use was made of local resources McNulty Court DS0000000377.V302799.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 13 such as day centres and other places of interest. Residents were also given individual support to go to places such as the Metro Centre and local restaurants. Each person’s plan of care covered how they would be supported to be involved in their local and wider community. Residents could access places in the local and wider community by using the Home’s own minibus. Staff supported residents to keep in touch with relatives and friends who were important to them. Relatives were consulted about what happens in people’s lives. The residents had opportunities to mix with people who do not have disabilities through the use of what the local community has to offer. The relatives of two people confirmed that staff made them welcome when they visited and kept them informed of important matters affecting their relative. They also said they were consulted about how their relatives were cared for. There was clear written guidance for staff regarding how they should respect and safeguard the residents’ right to privacy. Staff were observed following this guidance. The Home’s menus were varied and indicated that residents were offered a healthy and nutritious diet. Although the menus did not include alternatives it was confirmed that these would be provided if requested. Healthy eating was encouraged. McNulty Court DS0000000377.V302799.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 14 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): Standards 18, 19 & 20. Quality in this outcome area was good. This judgement has been made using available evidence including a visit to this service. Suitable plans of support were in place and staff had a good understanding of each resident’s support needs. The arrangements for monitoring and meeting the health care needs of residents were satisfactory. This meant that people received the care and support they needed. The arrangements for the administration and recording of medication were in general satisfactory and protected the residents. McNulty Court DS0000000377.V302799.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 15 EVIDENCE: In their response to a questionnaire one resident confirmed that staff ‘treat them well’. A GP and the relatives of two people confirmed that they were ‘satisfied with the overall care provided to residents’. One relative said her relative “… continues to thrive at McNulty Court”. Support plans were in place for each resident describing how their personal and general care needs and preferences would be met. Residents were supported to make choices about their daily lives and routines. Staff also supported and assisted the residents to choose their own clothes, hairstyles and toiletries. The health care needs of the residents had been assessed and were recorded in their plans of care. Their health care needs were monitored and regularly reviewed. 13 staff had a current first aid certificate. Each resident was registered with a local health centre. A GP from the health centre confirmed that the Home ‘communicated clearly and worked in partnership’ with them. Residents were supported to access health care services such as dentists, opticians and, where appropriate, specialist services such as occupational therapists. One person had been diagnosed as having epilepsy. The Manager said this person had not had a seizure for years. It was agreed the lady’s GP and consultant would be asked whether there were any risks for this person when bathing and, if there were, that a suitable risk assessment risk management plan would be prepared. None of the residents were responsible for administering their own medication. No problems were noted in the sample of medication records examined. Some of the staff responsible for administering medication to residents had had training in the safe handling and use of medicines. Training was being arranged for the other staff. Some staff had also received training in carrying out a clinical task for one resident. It was not clear who the health care professional was that had professional responsibility and accountability for delegating this task to the staff at McNulty Court. The Manager agreed to seek clarification about this. McNulty Court DS0000000377.V302799.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 16 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): Standards 22 & 23. Quality in this outcome area was adequate. This judgement has been made using available evidence including a visit to this service. Suitable systems were in place for handling complaints and for protecting residents from abuse. Appropriate action had not been taken in response to an allegation. EVIDENCE: The Home had a complaints procedure. This was available in a format that could be understood by some of the residents. One resident confirmed in their response to a questionnaire that they knew how to make a complaint. The relatives of two residents also confirmed this. There were no entries in the Home’s Complaints Record Book. The majority of staff had received basic training in the protection of vulnerable adults. This is now part of the regular core training for staff. Policies and procedures for the protection of vulnerable adults were in place. These procedures had not been followed in one case where an allegation had been made about a member of staff. When this was brought to the attention of the Manager she arranged for a referral to be made in line with these procedures. Additional training was also being arranged for some staff. McNulty Court DS0000000377.V302799.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 17 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): Standards 24 & 30. Quality in this outcome area was good. This judgement has been made using available evidence including a visit to this service. The arrangements for keeping the Home clean and tidy were satisfactory. The standard of the accommodation, décor and furniture and fittings was good and provided residents with a comfortable place to live. EVIDENCE: The Home was clean and tidy. Staff had put effort into giving it a homely appearance. The Home is situated close to local amenities and public transport. Maintenance and redecoration is carried out at regular intervals. Residents had been supported to personalise their bedrooms. Relatives confirmed that they could see their relative in private when visiting. The Home had a number of items of specialist aids and equipment to meet the needs of the residents. McNulty Court DS0000000377.V302799.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 18 Cleaning materials and other potentially hazardous substances were safely stored. Policies and procedures were in place relating to the Control of Hazardous Substances and Infection Control and other Health and Safety matters. Staff received regular Health and Safety training including Food Hygiene. McNulty Court DS0000000377.V302799.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 19 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): Standards 32, 34 & 35. Quality in this outcome area was adequate. This judgement has been made using available evidence including a visit to this service. There was a competent team of staff who had access to a range of training opportunities. But the arrangements for ensuring staff received training that covered the specific conditions of residents were not fully satisfactory. This meant that people were being cared for by some staff who had not had training that covered their specific conditions. Staff records were not kept in the Home as required. This was not satisfactory since it meant they were not readily available for inspection. EVIDENCE: Staff were observed communicating with and supporting residents in a caring, respectful and helpful manner. It was evident that the residents felt comfortable in their company. The relatives of one resident said they were: “… delighted with the five star care and accommodation (and) the brilliant staff”. There was a programme of training for staff that included regular updates of core training. The training programme for 2007 – 2008 included Equality and Diversity and Person Centred Planning. 50 of the care staff had a relevant professional qualification and three staff were on a course of training leading to McNulty Court DS0000000377.V302799.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 20 this qualification. The Manager said she had been unable to access training that covered some of the specific conditions of the residents, such as epilepsy. Two inspectors made an announced inspection visit to the personnel department of Northgate and Prudhoe Trust. This was because all of the staff records are held centrally and have not been inspected for some time. Twenty staff files were made available from a selection of homes within the area. The inspectors also requested six specified home files on the day of inspection. The files were comprehensive. There was evidence of Criminal Record Bureau checks, health questionnaires, completed application forms and confirmation of employment. Where possible service users have been involved in the recruitment process. The files also contained details of a six-week induction, probationary period and individual training and development profiles. There was evidence from the interview sheets that prospective staff have to supply proof of identity and proof of training. This information is not collated on to the files. Staff said that photographs and copies of training certificates were going to be put on the files but this has not started. McNulty Court DS0000000377.V302799.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 21 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): Standards 37, 39 & 42. Quality in this outcome area was adequate. This judgement has been made using available evidence including a visit to this service. The Manager was suitably qualified and experienced. The arrangements for monitoring the quality of the service at McNulty Court were not satisfactory. They did not ensure that the views of residents, their families, friends and relevant people in the local community are sought about the service provided and how it should be developed. Steps had been taken to keep the residents safe but the arrangements for protecting people from the risk of fire were not fully adequate. EVIDENCE: The Manager was qualified and experienced. There was evidence that she regularly updated her training and reviewed the care practices within the home. McNulty Court DS0000000377.V302799.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 22 A quality assurance and quality monitoring system was in place. However, the records available indicated that the system had not been fully implemented during the previous 12 months. Monthly monitoring visits to the Home were being carried out. Staff received regular training that covered moving and handling, health and safety, first aid and basic food hygiene. Risk assessments were in place covering safe working practices. Regular ‘in house’ checks of the Home’s fire equipment were being done. Records indicated that some staff had not had fire instruction, or taken part in a fire drill during the previous 12 months. It was difficult to get an overview of this because individual records were not being kept for each person. The Manager confirmed that the Home’s electrical equipment and gas and electrical installations had been checked recently been checked. Copies of the reports/certificates were not available for inspection. There was also no recorded evidence that regular checks of the Home’s hoisting equipment had been carried out. The Manager said they had. McNulty Court DS0000000377.V302799.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 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 3 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 3 23 2 ENVIRONMENT Standard No Score 24 4 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 3 3 X 3 X LIFESTYLES Standard No Score 11 X 12 3 13 3 14 X 15 3 16 3 17 3 PERSONAL AND HEALTHCARE SUPPORT Standard No 18 19 20 21 Score 4 4 3 X 3 X 2 X X 2 X McNulty Court DS0000000377.V302799.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 24 No Are there any outstanding requirements from the last inspection? STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS This section sets out the actions, which must be taken so that the registered person/s meets the Care Standards Act 2000, Care Homes Regulations 2001 and the National Minimum Standards. The Registered Provider(s) must comply with the given timescales. No. 1 Standard YA23 Regulation 13 Requirement Timescale for action 07/02/07 2 YA34 17(3)(b) 3 YA39 24 The Registered Persons must take action to ensure that the Home’s adult protection policy and procedures are complied with at all times. The Registered Persons must 01/04/07 ensure that at all times records are available for inspection in the care home by any person authorised by the Commission to enter and inspect the care home. The registered Person must 07/04/07 establish and maintain a system for: a. reviewing at appropriate intervals; and b. improving, the quality of care provided at the Home. The registered person shall supply to the Commission a report in respect of any review of the quality of care provided at the Home and make a copy available to service users. The system for reviewing the quality of care provided at the Home must provide for McNulty Court DS0000000377.V302799.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 25 4 YA42 23 consultation with service users and their representatives. The Registered Persons must 07/03/07 ensure that all staff take part in fire drills at the frequency agreed with the Fire Authority. 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 Refer to Standard YA32 Good Practice Recommendations Provide staff with training in meeting the specific disabilities and conditions of residents such as early on set dementia and epilepsy. In order to ensure that all service users are protected from harm it is recommended that staff have Criminal Record Bureau checks carried out at 3 yearly intervals. In order to improve the monitoring of staff participation in fire drills and fire prevention training it is recommended that individual records be kept for each member of staff. Copies of maintenance checks/inspections of the Home’s installations and equipment should be available in the Home for inspection. YA23 YA34 3 YA42 McNulty Court DS0000000377.V302799.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 26 Commission for Social Care Inspection Cramlington Area Office Northumbria House Manor Walks Cramlington Northumberland NE23 6UR 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 McNulty Court DS0000000377.V302799.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!