Inspection on 12/05/05 for Meadway Court

This inspection was carried out on 12th May 2005.

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

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

Other inspections for this house

Meadway Court 27/01/09

Meadway Court 17/01/08

Meadway Court 04/07/06

Meadway Court 08/03/06

Meadway Court 08/12/04

Meadway Court 24/05/04

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 Meadway Court Meadway Bramhall Stockport SK7 1JZ Lead Inspector Jackie Kelly Announced 12 13 & 31 May 2005, 09:00 th th st 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 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. Meadway Court F54-F04 s8567 Meadway COurt v220803 120505 Stage 4.doc Version 1.30 Page 3 SERVICE INFORMATION Name of service Meadway Court Address Meadway, Bramhall, Stockport SK7 1JZ Telephone number Fax number Email address Name of registered provider(s)/company (if applicable) Name of registered manager (if applicable) Type of registration No. of places registered (if applicable) 0161 440 8150 0161 439 5629 meadwaycourt@boroughcare.org.uk Borough Care Limited. Lislburne House, Alfreton Road, Offerton, Stockport, Cheshire SK2 5LU Mrs Jacqueline MacFall Care Home 42 Category(ies) of DE(E) Dementia - over 65 - 5 registration, with number OP Old Age - 42 of places Meadway Court F54-F04 s8567 Meadway COurt v220803 120505 Stage 4.doc Version 1.30 Page 4 SERVICE INFORMATION Conditions of registration: 1 Service users to include up to 42 OP and up to 5 DE(E). Date of last inspection 8th December 2004 Brief Description of the Service: Meadway Court provides permanent care for thirty-six elderly people and intermediate care for six. Four day-care places are also provided seven days per week; these places are not included in the registration. The home is one of 12 care homes owned by Borough Care Limited, a “not-forprofit” company. The home consists of 40 single bedrooms and one shared bedroom. There are six lounge/dining rooms situated over two floors. Twentyfour of the rooms have en-suite facilities, which comprise of a wash-hand basin and toilet. The shared bedroom has an en-suite shower facility. A full passenger lift is in place. There is a substantial conservatory to the rear of the home, which opens onto a large patio area with garden furniture. The gardens are pleasantly landscaped with flowers and shrubs. The home is situated at the end of a cul-de-sac in the Bramhall area of Stockport. Bramhall village is approximately ten minutes walk away. The village has a wide variety of shops, restaurants, churches and banks. Access to motorway networks, public transport and train station are within a reasonable distance of the home. Meadway Court F54-F04 s8567 Meadway COurt v220803 120505 Stage 4.doc Version 1.30 Page 5 SUMMARY This is an overview of what the inspector found during the inspection. This was an annual announced inspection, which took place over two and a half days. Some of the time was spent in the office talking with the deputy manager and care supervisor. Care plans; staff files and the policies and procedures file were looked at. During the inspection residents, social worker, GP and staff were spoken to. A tour of the home with the deputy manager took place. Questionnaires were sent to the home for the residents to complete and were sent back to the inspector. Some of the questionnaires had been completed with the help of the care staff. Questionnaires were also sent to the doctors, district nurse, physiotherapist and occupational therapist that visit the home. Replies were received from two of the doctors and one each from the district nurse, physiotherapist and social worker. What the service does well: What has improved since the last inspection? What they could do better: The daily recordings in the care plans need to be more meaningful to the reader and record the results of treatments prescribed. The organisation Meadway Court F54-F04 s8567 Meadway COurt v220803 120505 Stage 4.doc Version 1.30 Page 6 should amend the application form to ask for full employment history from leaving school or full time education and explain any gaps. This has been a recommendation in the two previous inspection reports of May and December 2004. 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. Meadway Court F54-F04 s8567 Meadway COurt v220803 120505 Stage 4.doc Version 1.30 Page 7 DETAILS OF INSPECTOR FINDINGS CONTENTS Choice of Home (Standards 1–6) Health and Personal Care (Standards 7-11) Daily Life and Social Activities (Standards 12-15) Complaints and Protection (Standards 16-18) Environment (Standards 19-26) Staffing (Standards 27-30) Management and Administration (Standards 31-38) Scoring of Standards Statutory Requirements Identified During the Inspection Meadway Court F54-F04 s8567 Meadway COurt v220803 120505 Stage 4.doc Version 1.30 Page 8 Choice of Home The intended outcomes for Standards 1 – 6 are: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Prospective service users have the information they need to make an informed choice about where to live. Each service user has a written contract/ statement of terms and conditions with the home. No service user moves into the home without having had his/her needs assessed and been assured that these will be met. Service users and their representatives know that the home they enter will meet their needs. Prospective service users and their relatives and friends have an opportunity to visit and assess the quality, facilities and suitability of the home. Service users assessed and referred solely for intermediate care are helped to maximise their independence and return home. The Commission considers Standards 3 and 6 the key standards to be inspected at least once during a 12 month period. JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for standard(s) 1,2,3,4,5 & 6 Meadway Court had an admissions procedure in place which ensured that the home could meet the residents needs. Relatives and residents were given written information as to what was provided. EVIDENCE: There were social work assessments, organisations care assessments, contracts and care plans; all of which gave the relatives, residents and care workers facts about the home and the care needs of the resident. A new brochure had been produced which was given, together with the service user guide, to residents or their relatives. A twice-yearly newsletter is produced and copies had been given to all members of staff and residents or their relatives. Residents were given the opportunity to visit the home before making the decision to move in for the trial period of six weeks. The option to visit the home before any final decisions were made was often taken up by relatives on behalf of the resident; particularly when the person was being admitted into an Meadway Court F54-F04 s8567 Meadway COurt v220803 120505 Stage 4.doc Version 1.30 Page 9 intermediate care bed. Care assessments were made on the homes behalf by the intermediate care team, which consisted of a social worker and two nurses. The physiotherapist and occupational therapist assessed the residents who were admitted to the home in an intermediate care bed in order that any special needs could be included in the care plan. Not all the residents who were admitted into the intermediate care beds were able to return home because they would not be able to manage but would need support in a residential care home. A weekly meeting was held between the physiotherapist, occupational therapist, district nurse, intermediate care workers and social worker to make sure that the care plan was meeting the needs of the resident. Relatives were kept informed of progress and were invited to reviews. Meadway Court F54-F04 s8567 Meadway COurt v220803 120505 Stage 4.doc Version 1.30 Page 10 Health and Personal Care The intended outcomes for Standards 7 – 11 are: 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. The service user’s health, personal and social care needs are set out in an individual plan of care. Service users’ health care needs are fully met. Service users, where appropriate, are responsible for their own medication, and are protected by the home’s policies and procedures for dealing with medicines. Service users feel they are treated with respect and their right to privacy is upheld. Service users are assured that at the time of their death, staff will treat them and their family with care, sensitivity and respect. The Commission considers Standards 7, 8, 9 and 10 the key standards to be inspected at least once during a 12 month period. JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for standard(s) 7, 8, 9, 10 The health care needs and privacy of the residents were for the most part met by the care workers. The medication for the intermediate care residents was not being administered in a safe way and the daily record kept on the care plans could be improved. EVIDENCE: The care plans had instructions on the care needed that had been taken from the assessments. The daily log, which the care workers wrote for each individual resident did not always inform the reader of the results of treatments prescribed. GP visits were recorded separately within the care file but information from the visits should also be written on the daily log sheet so that all the care workers know what is happening. All but one of the residents who filled in a questionnaire agreed that their privacy was respected at all times and that the staff treated them well. Seven residents said that they felt well cared for two said sometimes and one said no. It was not possible to talk with the resident who said no or to talk with the home about their answer, as they did not give their name and no comments were made. Meadway Court F54-F04 s8567 Meadway COurt v220803 120505 Stage 4.doc Version 1.30 Page 11 Medication records were looked at and had been completed properly. However the storage of the medication for the intermediate care residents was not safe. On the third visit to the home this had been put right. None of the residents who were living at Meadway Court on the day of the inspection were in charge of their own medication for various reasons such as; not wishing to take the responsibility or mental health problems. Meadway Court F54-F04 s8567 Meadway COurt v220803 120505 Stage 4.doc Version 1.30 Page 12 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 standard(s) 12, 13, 14, 15 Residents were given choices so that they could maintain control over their daily life as far as their capabilities would allow. EVIDENCE: Questionnaires had been given to the residents by the home asking for their views on the social activities and the food provided. The menus now include the suggestions received from the residents. The questionnaires that were given out by the Commission for Social Care Inspection showed that the majority of the residents liked the food ‘sometimes’ however all those interviewed on the day of the inspection said that they were happy with the food. Comments received were; ‘food good – get a choice – have what I want – get breakfast in own room’. The activities organiser had produced a list of findings taken from the questionnaires about activities. The four weekly activities programme had been amended to include suggestions made. Resident meetings took place every three months; the last being in February 2005 and was attended by nineteen residents and three staff. These meetings are a way of giving the residents a chance to give their opinions. Each resident is also allocated a care worker known as a ‘key worker’ with whom the resident can talk to on a more personal and private level. A senior member of staff was also available at all times. There was an almost even response to the question Meadway Court F54-F04 s8567 Meadway COurt v220803 120505 Stage 4.doc Version 1.30 Page 13 (asked by the Commission for Social Care Inspection) ‘do residents wish to be more involved in decision making within the home’ with a slight majority saying no. Friends and relatives are welcomed at the home at all reasonable times of the day and evening. Meadway Court F54-F04 s8567 Meadway COurt v220803 120505 Stage 4.doc Version 1.30 Page 14 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 standard(s) 16, 17, 18 The manager and senior managers of Borough Care Limited protected the residents through the complaints procedure, monitoring of the service and supervision of care workers and managers. EVIDENCE: The majority of the residents who completed the questionnaire said that they knew who to complain to if they were unhappy with their care. The service user guide (which was given to all residents or their relatives) had a section on how and to whom residents could complain. There had been one complaint about the food; a letter was sent to the relative apologising and there had been no further complaints. The home was not responsible for any of the residents’ finances other than small amounts of cash for day-to-day items such as hairdressing. A record and receipts were kept. Staff had received training on elder abuse as part of their induction. The adult protection unit of Stockport Social Services had recently organised a course on the protection of vulnerable adults for all managers. The inspector was informed that this course would be repeated. The organisation had in place policies and procedures for whistle blowing and protection of vulnerable adults, which had recently been updated in March 2005. Meadway Court F54-F04 s8567 Meadway COurt v220803 120505 Stage 4.doc Version 1.30 Page 15 All staff received individual supervision on a regular basis. The home received a minimum monthly visit by a member of the senior management team from head office. Meadway Court F54-F04 s8567 Meadway COurt v220803 120505 Stage 4.doc Version 1.30 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 standard(s) 19 to 26 The home was clean, well maintained and decorated. All furnishings, fittings and equipment were in good condition and suitable for the needs of the residents. EVIDENCE: The inspector looked round the home and found it to be well maintained and decorated, clean and pleasant. There are a number of lounge/dining rooms situated around the home together with a large conservatory all of which were bright and cheerful. There were enough bathroom and toilets with a number of bedrooms having an en-suite toilet and wash-hand basin. Some of the bedrooms were more personalised than others for instance small items of furniture had been brought in; many had photographs and pictures on display. Meadway Court F54-F04 s8567 Meadway COurt v220803 120505 Stage 4.doc Version 1.30 Page 17 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 considers Standards 27, 29, and 30 the key standards to be inspected at least once during a 12 month period. JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for standard(s) 27 to 30 Service users needs were met by a workforce that had been recruited and trained using appropriate methods with the exception of one part of the application imformation. EVIDENCE: The rota’s sent to the Commission for Social Care Inspection showed that there were sufficient numbers of staff on duty. All new care workers receive an induction, which covers all the main areas of care. Further staff training is ongoing with many of the care workers having completed or registered to start a National Vocational Qualification Level 2 and/or Level 3. Staff recruitment procedures are followed which ensures that the care workers employed are suitable for the job. However the application form should ask for full employment history from leaving school or full time education and explain any gaps in order to protect the residents. This was a recommendation in the previous inspection reports of May and December 2004. Meadway Court F54-F04 s8567 Meadway COurt v220803 120505 Stage 4.doc Version 1.30 Page 18 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 33, 35 and 38 the key standards to be inspected at least once during a 12 month period. JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for standard(s) 31, 33, 35, 38 The home was run for the residents by a staff team who were trained and were aware of the health and safety of residents. EVIDENCE: There is to be a change in the manager who will be taking up her appointment on the 16 May 2005. The manager is trained and is transferring from another of the Borough Care Homes and is therefore familiar with the organisation, its policies and aims and objectives. The residents were asked their views through resident meetings, individual talks with their key-worker, questionnaires and suggestion box. All suggestions were listened to and put in place whenever possible (see standard ‘daily life and social activities). The majority of the residents who completed the Commissions’ questionnaire were mostly content with the amount of involvement they had in decision making in the home. However three residents Meadway Court F54-F04 s8567 Meadway COurt v220803 120505 Stage 4.doc Version 1.30 Page 19 said that they would like to be more involved but did not say how. One resident said that ‘there needs to be better communication before an event’; other comments were about the food and activities, which had been looked at and changes had been made. (see standard ‘daily life and social activities’). The organisation is not responsible for any of the residents’ finances. The organisation had in place a health and safety policy. Training for staff on health and safety, risk assessment and first aid was also in place. Those staff who were spoken to said that the organisation was ‘very supportive and encouraged training’. A letter from the fire service did not contain any matters of concern; the next monitoring visit is due in May 2007. All the necessary gas, electric and servicing certificates were available for inspection and were up to date. Meadway Court F54-F04 s8567 Meadway COurt v220803 120505 Stage 4.doc Version 1.30 Page 20 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 ENVIRONMENT Standard No 1 2 3 4 5 6 Score Standard No 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Score 3 3 3 3 3 3 HEALTH AND PERSONAL CARE Standard No Score 7 2 8 3 9 3 10 3 11 x DAILY LIFE AND SOCIAL ACTIVITIES Standard No Score 12 3 13 3 14 3 15 3 COMPLAINTS AND PROTECTION 4 4 3 3 3 4 4 4 STAFFING Standard No Score 27 3 28 3 29 2 30 3 MANAGEMENT AND ADMINISTRATION Standard No 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 Score Standard No 16 17 18 Score 3 3 3 3 x 3 x 3 x x 3 Meadway Court F54-F04 s8567 Meadway COurt v220803 120505 Stage 4.doc Version 1.30 Page 21 yes Are there any outstanding requirements from the last inspection? STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS This section sets out the actions which must be taken so that the registered person/s meets the Care Standards Act 2000, Care Homes Regulations 2001 and the National Minimum Standards. The Registered Provider(s) must comply with the given timescales. No. 1. Standard Regulation Requirement Timescale for action 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 7 29 Good Practice Recommendations The registered person should ensure that the daily recordings are more meaningful to the reader and record the results of any treatments. The registered person should amend the job application form to ask for full employment hsitory from leaving school or full time education and explain any gaps. This was a recommendation in the previous two inspection reports of May and December 2004. Meadway Court F54-F04 s8567 Meadway COurt v220803 120505 Stage 4.doc Version 1.30 Page 22 Commission for Social Care Inspection 2nd Floor, Heritage Wharf Portland Place Ashton-under-Lyne OL6 0QD 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 Meadway Court F54-F04 s8567 Meadway COurt v220803 120505 Stage 4.doc Version 1.30 Page 23 - 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!