Inspection on 10/10/05 for Meavy View

This inspection was carried out on 10th October 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 made no statutory requirements on the home as a result of this inspection and there were no outstanding actions from the previous inspection report.

Other inspections for this house

Meavy View 20/08/07

Meavy View 27/09/06

Meavy View 14/02/06

Meavy View 15/03/05

Meavy View 10/08/04

Meavy View 26/02/04

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 Meavy View 146 Milkstone Road Rochdale Lancashire OL11 1NX Lead Inspector Jenny Andrew Unannounced Inspection 10th October 2005 09:00 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 Meavy View DS0000025484.V255924.R01.S.doc Version 5.0 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. Meavy View DS0000025484.V255924.R01.S.doc Version 5.0 Page 3 SERVICE INFORMATION Name of service Meavy View Address 146 Milkstone Road Rochdale Lancashire OL11 1NX 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) 01706 861876 01706 642639 Mr David Fitton Mrs Anna Christina Fitton Mrs Susan Huntington Care Home 32 Category(ies) of Old age, not falling within any other category registration, with number (32) of places Meavy View DS0000025484.V255924.R01.S.doc Version 5.0 Page 4 SERVICE INFORMATION Conditions of registration: 1. 2. The home is regsitered for a maximum of 32 service users to include:up to 32 service users in the category of OP (older people over 65years of age). The service should employ a suitably qualified and experienced manager, who is registered with the Commission for Social Care Inspection. 15th March 2005 Date of last inspection Brief Description of the Service: Meavy View is a care home providing personal care and accommodation for 32 people aged 65 years and over. The three-storey building is purpose built and a passenger lift is provided to all floors. Twenty-eight single and two double bedrooms are provided. One single and one double room have en suite facilities. The home is located approximately one mile from Rochdale town centre, close to a small shopping precinct and Post Office. A regular bus service to Rochdale passes the home. A patio area is provided to the rear of the home that is used by service users in the Summer months. Ramped access is available to the front of the home. Parking for approximately 5 cars is available at the front of the home with some additional on street parking at the side of the house. Meavy View DS0000025484.V255924.R01.S.doc Version 5.0 Page 5 SUMMARY This is an overview of what the inspector found during the inspection. The inspection was unannounced and took place over 6 hours. The Inspector checked care plans and some other records and looked around parts of the building. In order to obtain information about the home, half a day was spent observing care practices and speaking to 9 residents, 2 relatives, the senior in charge, 2 carers, the cook, administrator and the visiting District Nurse. In addition 4 comment cards had been returned over the past 3 months by relatives, saying in writing what they thought about the home. What the service does well: What has improved since the last inspection? The staff were now having supervision every two months, to make sure they were doing their jobs properly. The owner was making monthly visits and writing a report showing what the residents thought about the home. Since the last inspection, more staff meetings had been held. This meant that staff were getting to talk in a group about any problems and work out ways they could deal with them, so they were all working the same way. Meavy View DS0000025484.V255924.R01.S.doc Version 5.0 Page 6 What they could do better: Please contact the provider for advice of actions taken in response to this inspection. The report of this inspection is available from enquiries@csci.gsi.gov.uk or by contacting your local CSCI office. Meavy View DS0000025484.V255924.R01.S.doc Version 5.0 Page 7 DETAILS OF INSPECTOR FINDINGS CONTENTS Choice of Home (Standards 1–6) Health and Personal Care (Standards 7-11) Daily Life and Social Activities (Standards 12-15) Complaints and Protection (Standards 16-18) Environment (Standards 19-26) Staffing (Standards 27-30) Management and Administration (Standards 31-38) Scoring of Outcomes Statutory Requirements Identified During the Inspection Meavy View DS0000025484.V255924.R01.S.doc Version 5.0 Page 8 Choice of Home The intended outcomes for Standards 1 – 6 are: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Prospective service users have the information they need to make an informed choice about where to live. Each service user has a written contract/ statement of terms and conditions with the home. No service user moves into the home without having had his/her needs assessed and been assured that these will be met. Service users and their representatives know that the home they enter will meet their needs. Prospective service users and their relatives and friends have an opportunity to visit and assess the quality, facilities and suitability of the home. Service users assessed and referred solely for intermediate care are helped to maximise their independence and return home. The Commission considers Standards 3 and 6 the key standards to be inspected at least once during a 12 month period. JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for the following standard(s): 3 All residents were being assessed prior to admission, in order to ensure the home could meet their identified needs. EVIDENCE: The files of the two most recently admitted residents were checked and both contained detailed pre-admission assessments, which had been undertaken by health care professionals, whilst they had been in hospital. One file also contained the home’s pre-admission assessment, as the manager had visited the person in hospital, to make sure they could meet their identified needs. As the home does not provide nursing care, the manager makes referrals to the district nursing service as required. The district nurse was visiting at the time of the inspection. She confirmed that the staff contacted the service as soon as any problems were identified and that they followed her instructions with regard to the residents’ care. As several residents presently living at the home were suffering from confusion or dementia, some of the staff had already attended training in dementia care. Meavy View DS0000025484.V255924.R01.S.doc Version 5.0 Page 9 A further 4 places had been booked for staff in January and February 2006. Meavy View DS0000025484.V255924.R01.S.doc Version 5.0 Page 10 Health and Personal Care The intended outcomes for Standards 7 – 11 are: 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. The service user’s health, personal and social care needs are set out in an individual plan of care. Service users’ health care needs are fully met. Service users, where appropriate, are responsible for their own medication, and are protected by the home’s policies and procedures for dealing with medicines. Service users feel they are treated with respect and their right to privacy is upheld. Service users are assured that at the time of their death, staff will treat them and their family with care, sensitivity and respect. The Commission considers Standards 7, 8, 9 and 10 the key standards to be inspected at least once during a 12 month period. JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for the following standard(s): 7, 8 & 10 Residents’ health and social care needs were being well met but this was not always reflected in the documentation, which could result in staff being inconsistent in their approach. Service users felt they were treated with respect and said their right to privacy was being upheld. EVIDENCE: The care plans of 3 residents were inspected which contained information based on the pre-admission assessments. The plan, for the resident who had lived in the home for several years, was detailed and until July 2005, had been regularly updated. However, the two care plans for the residents admitted more recently, were incomplete and did not reflect their full care needs. This was particularly evident where one residents mental health needs had recently deteriorated but the care plan did not address or reflect this. The care plans had not been updated since August 2005, when in fact monthly reviews must be done. It was however, apparent, from speaking to residents and staff, and from observations on the day, that their health and personal care needs were being met even though the documentation was incomplete. The manager Meavy View DS0000025484.V255924.R01.S.doc Version 5.0 Page 11 must ensure that all care plans are completed and kept updated. Signatures of residents and/or their relatives were evidenced on the care plan files seen. Appropriate policies/procedures were in place in relation to continence promotion, care of pressure sores and clinical procedures. All such policies made reference to the importance of regular hand washing when dealing with service users personal care needs. Staff hand washing facilities were provided in all areas of the home. As at previous inspections, service user feedback was positive with regard to their health and personal care needs being met. This was also commented upon positively by the 2 relatives interviewed and the relative feedback questionnaires. Feedback from the visiting district nurse, was also very complimentary. She said she “couldn’t fault the health and personal care given”, “the staff were always pleasant” and “the home never had an unpleasant odour”. The Manager’s previous nursing background enabled her to refer to specialist services without delay, should problems develop. GPs, District Nurses, dentists, opticians, chiropodists, speech therapists, dieticians, CPNs, continence advisors were all appropriately consulted, as necessary and any advice acted upon. A good selection of pressure relieving equipment was available on site, with further provision from the District Nursing service as required. Risk assessments in relation to nutrition, tissue viability and moving and handling were in place as necessary. It was noted however, that whilst it was normal practice for them to be updated on a monthly basis, this had not been the case for the last 2 months. This was said to be due to the manager having been off sick and/or on holiday. It was noted in one bedroom, that there was a mattress placed on the floor, next to the bed. This was said to be because the resident was at risk of falling out of bed but a risk assessment was not in place. This must be addressed. Sitting scales were provided and service users were weighed on admission and regularly thereafter. The home had recently purchased an additional mobile hoist due to the number of residents requiring moving/handling assistance. Residents spoken to said they were treated with respect and dignity by the staff in relation to the manner in which staff assisted them with bathing, dressing, continence etc. and that staff respected their individual daily routines. The visiting relatives also said they were completely satisfied with the way the person they visited was being cared for. One relative commented upon the high quality of the laundry service and how the people she visited always looked clean and well dressed. Examples of staff upholding these values was seen during the inspection; staff were seen to knock on bedroom doors before entering, the district nurse saw people in their own bedrooms, residents were dressed appropriately in clean and well ironed clothes, personal Meavy View DS0000025484.V255924.R01.S.doc Version 5.0 Page 12 care tasks were undertaken in a sensitive and caring way and residents were able to get up and have their breakfasts at whatever time they chose. The telephone is located in a quiet corridor between two lounges so is both private and easily accessible. In addition a cordless ‘phone is available for use in bedrooms. Mail was said to be handed to residents unopened. Meavy View DS0000025484.V255924.R01.S.doc Version 5.0 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 & 15 Residents’ individual routines and preferences were respected by the staff but social activities and stimulation for the residents could be further improved. Residents are encouraged to maintain contact with their family/friends whom are made welcome by the staff team. The dietary needs of residents were well catered for, with a balanced and varied selection of food available at each mealtime. EVIDENCE: Three of the more independent residents said they felt more varied activities could be provided, as they often felt bored and needed something to occupy their time. They liked “Active Minds” coming into the home to entertain them, but said this was only on a monthly basis. They said 2 trips out had been arranged over the summer to Hollingworth Lake and the Touchstone Museum but felt more local trips out could have been organised. Other residents spoken to said they preferred to remain in the privacy of their bedrooms during the day and not to take part in any activities and that this was respected by the staff. Following a requirement made at the last inspection, an activity programme had been formulated which was displayed within the home. This included chair Meavy View DS0000025484.V255924.R01.S.doc Version 5.0 Page 14 exercises, ball games, writing/drawing, reminiscence, jigsaws, skittles and singalongs. In addition an activity book was kept in which staff recorded what activities had taken place and who had taken part. Good one to one work was being done on the day of the inspection, e.g. discussions about the news, assistance with crosswords etc. but many of the residents with confusional states, were spending large parts of the day asleep and lacked any stimulation. It was evident that whilst staff tried to implement the activities, they were not always being able to do so, due to having to prioritise the residents’ personal care needs. In order to ensure stimulating activities are offered daily, the manager may wish to allocate a staff member to be responsible for activities. This person could then ensure that activities offered were appropriate for the intellectual abilities of individuals and groups, taking part. As several residents spend much of the day in their bedrooms, it is essential that staff spend time with them also and ensure they are advised when any activities are taking place in the lounges. Other feedback from residents indicated they were very satisfied with their present lifestyles. They said they could follow their chosen routines and this was apparent on the day of the inspection. Residents were getting up at varying times, eating meals where they chose and using their own bedrooms whenever they wanted. Residents spiritual needs were being well met although the senior care assistant said the local minister had failed to visit for the past 2/3 weeks. Visitors spoken with and feedback from the relatives/visitors comment cards, indicated staff made them feel welcome. Comments included “I have never gone away without a cup of tea”, “the staff always find time to talk to me”, “all the staff at Meavy View are very pleasant and caring” and “nothing is too much trouble for the staff”. Menus were seen to offer a varied choice of nutritional food over a four week period. Feedback from the residents spoken to was generally positive although two service users did say they would like more varied tea-time meals. Comments made included “quite good”, “get well fed”, “choices at each meal”, “reasonable food” and “excellent”. Service users’ likes/dislikes were recorded on file. The majority of residents eat in the dining room but individual choice in this area is respected. Six residents enjoy having breakfast in the privacy of their bedrooms and several take all meals in their rooms. Breakfast and lunch was observed during the inspection. Staff attended to the residents efficiently but also had time to talk, discussing the news headlines and the England football game. The food is conveyed to the dining room via a dumb waiter and a good system was in place so that staff were clear whom the plated up meals were for. It was evident the cook knew residents preferred likes/dislikes and portion sizes. The good practice of offering the gravy separately was noted, as some residents liked a lot and others only a drop. Meavy View DS0000025484.V255924.R01.S.doc Version 5.0 Page 15 The residents spoken with were unaware of what was being served for lunch on the day of the inspection, as there were no large print menus or menu board displayed. The inspector sampled the meal, which was minced beef and dumplings or home made cheese and onion quiche, carrots and swede and mashed potato, followed by stewed apples and custard. The mince was tasty as was the quiche and the meal was nicely presented. Special diets were provided as necessary and advice from dieticians taken and followed. Food/fluid intake charts were used as necessary. At the time of the inspection, there were no residents who required a liquidised diet. Drinks were offered throughout the day and the residents spoken to said they could have a choice of tea, coffee or cold drinks. The inspector was informed snacks were available in the evening and through the night on request. Meavy View DS0000025484.V255924.R01.S.doc Version 5.0 Page 16 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): 18 Satisfactory whistle blowing and vulnerable adult procedures were in place ensuring that service users were listened to and protected. EVIDENCE: The Rochdale inter-agency Protection of Vulnerable Adult procedure was in place and the senior carer said this would be instigated should staff report any concerns. Several staff had been on the Rochdale MBC Vulnerable Adult training courses and a further 6 were booked on 3 courses due to take place in February and March 2006. The owner had just purchased a video on abuse and in-house training was also going to take place. Staff files inspected, showed evidence of Criminal Record Bureau checks having been obtained. The home were also awaiting a satisfactory check for a recently employed domestic, who was waiting to start work. Meavy View DS0000025484.V255924.R01.S.doc Version 5.0 Page 17 Environment The intended outcomes for Standards 19 – 26 are: 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. Service users live in a safe, well-maintained environment. Service users have access to safe and comfortable indoor and outdoor communal facilities. Service users have sufficient and suitable lavatories and washing facilities. Service users have the specialist equipment they require to maximise their independence. Service users’ own rooms suit their needs. Service users live in safe, comfortable bedrooms with their own possessions around them. Service users live in safe, comfortable surroundings. The home is clean, pleasant and hygienic. The Commission considers Standards 19 and 26 the key standards to be inspected at least once during a 12 month period. JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for the following standard(s): 19 The home had benefited from an ongoing maintenance programme, which had resulted in a comfortable, homely, clean and safe environment being provided for the residents. EVIDENCE: A full environmental inspection was not undertaken on this visit. Residents interviewed were however, satisfied with their bedrooms, which they had been able to personalise. They also commented upon how clean the home was kept. Relative comment cards and those visitors spoken to also said the home was kept very clean and that there were never any unpleasant odours. This was also noted during the inspection. No recent fire or environmental health visits had been made but previous requirements from past visits had been implemented. Whilst walking around the building, it was noted that toilet number 5 was locked and currently out of use. The senior care assistant said it was because a new wash hand basin and toilet were to be fitted. This toilet had been out of Meavy View DS0000025484.V255924.R01.S.doc Version 5.0 Page 18 use for several months and action must now be taken to complete the necessary work in order that it could be brought back into use for the residents. Meavy View DS0000025484.V255924.R01.S.doc Version 5.0 Page 19 Staffing The intended outcomes for Standards 27 – 30 are: 27. 28. 29. 30. Service users’ needs are met by the numbers and skill mix of staff. Service users are in safe hands at all times. Service users are supported and protected by the home’s recruitment policy and practices. Staff are trained and competent to do their jobs. The Commission consider all the above are key standards to be inspected at least once during a 12 month period. JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for the following standard(s): 27, 28 & 30 Staffing levels were adequate to meet the needs of the present resident group. Insufficient staff had received NVQ and induction/foundation training to ensure they were equipped with the necessary skills to do their jobs safely and effectively. EVIDENCE: The rota for the week of the inspection showed sufficient staff were on duty both day and night, for the number of residents (24), presently living at the home. The manager was currently off sick but in her absence, senior care assistants were endeavouring to cover some of her duties. The home employs sufficient ancillary staff for the kitchen, laundry and domestic duties. The laundry assistant was however, currently off sick but her hours were being covered by other staff undertaking additional laundry hours. A new domestic had recently been recruited, but was unable to commence work until a satisfactory Criminal Record Bureau (CRB) check had been received. The home had been waiting 3 weeks for the check to come through. On the day of the inspection, one of the care assistants on duty became ill and had to go home. The senior carer was however, able to respond to the staffing shortfall promptly and arrange for another carer to start her shift earlier. In the interim, the care assistant, who had been allocated laundry hours, was asked to assist at lunchtime in the dining room. She was seen to wear a clean tabard over her uniform, in order to prevent cross infection. Meavy View DS0000025484.V255924.R01.S.doc Version 5.0 Page 20 The staff team comprised of 29 care staff, not including the manager. Of these 8 had undertaken NVQ level 2 training and 2 had completed the NVQ Level 3 course. From checking the personnel files however, 4 did not contain copy certificates to show they had achieved this qualification and action should be taken to address this shortfall. This means that the home’s trained ratio of staff is only 35 as opposed to the standard of at least 50 trained before December 2005. A further 3 staff were said to be commencing NVQ level 2 training, the week following the inspection which will raise the ratio, when they have done the training to 35 . The Inspector was advised that several staff who had completed their NVQ training had left the home which was why the percentage was lower than at the inspection in August 2004. The manager must ensure that further staff are enrolled on this training in order to meet the required ratio within the timescale. Files of the 2 most recently recruited care assistants were checked to ascertain what induction and foundation training they had completed. Both contained evidence they had completed the home’s internal induction training programme but this did not meet the TOPSS standards. One care assistant, who had started working at the home in January 2005, had attended a one day “Learn Direct” induction training course. A work book was in her file, setting out information she was required to learn with regard to meeting the standards as set out by the Training Organisation for the Personal Social Services (TOPSS). It was however, evident, from reading through the workbook, that all the course modules, could not possibly have been adequately covered in a day and there was no evidence of her learning being demonstrated from the one day course, in any written format. She had however, since undertaken fire, moving/handling and first aid and was booked to undertake food hygiene training on 31 October 2005. She had not completed all of the modules in relation to the foundation training, which it is expected all care assistants will complete within 6 months of their employment. The manager must ensure that all staff receive thorough induction and foundation training within the given timescale. Meavy View DS0000025484.V255924.R01.S.doc Version 5.0 Page 21 Management and Administration The intended outcomes for Standards 31 – 38 are: 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. Service users live in a home which is run and managed by a person who is fit to be in charge, of good character and able to discharge his or her responsibilities fully. Service users benefit from the ethos, leadership and management approach of the home. The home is run in the best interests of service users. Service users are safeguarded by the accounting and financial procedures of the home. Service users’ financial interests are safeguarded. Staff are appropriately supervised. Service users’ rights and best interests are safeguarded by the home’s record keeping, policies and procedures. The health, safety and welfare of service users and staff are promoted and protected. The Commission considers Standards 31, 33, 35 and 38 the key standards to be inspected at least once during a 12 month period. JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for the following standard(s): 33, 36 and 38 The quality assurance systems in place could be further improved in order the service is continually monitored to ensure it is run in the best interests of the residents. Regular supervision ensured that staff were managed to support good practice and professional development and to address any shortfalls in their performance. Policies, procedures and practices operating within the home, promote and safeguard the health, safety and welfare of the people using the service. EVIDENCE: The home’s annual development plan was unavailable at the time of the inspection as the proprietor was on holiday and the administrator was unsure as to where it was kept. A copy of the updated plan should be faxed or sent to the Commission for Social Care Inspection, Horwich office. Whilst feedback Meavy View DS0000025484.V255924.R01.S.doc Version 5.0 Page 22 questionnaires for residents, relatives and visiting professionals to the home were in place, since the last inspection in March 2005, only one new questionnaire had been completed and returned from a district nurse. The manager should ensure that feedback questionnaires are regularly circulated in order that satisfaction with the service from varying sources can be closely monitored. One new initiative had been introduced by the proprietor, of recording interviews with residents as part of his monthly Regulation 26 visits. He was not however, recording action to be taken to address issues raised and this should be addressed. Both staff and service users commented positively on the accessibility of the manager and her willingness to listen to suggestions/concerns. More regular staff meetings were now taking place but a recommendation for resident meetings to be held had not been implemented. The minutes of one of the staff meetings, recorded the manager as having discussed the importance of spending time with new residents to build up trusting relationships with them. From talking to staff and checking staff files, it was identified that the manager had spent time and effort in ensuring that staff received regular supervision. Over the last month however, due to her being on holiday and sick leave, supervision had ceased. In order to ensure that supervision continues to be held regularly in her absence, the manager should identify other senior staff who may be able to assist following training. From checking the maintenance records, it was evidenced that regular maintenance checks and servicing of equipment was continuing to be undertaken. Inspection of the training matrix and discussion with staff indicated that the majority of staff had undertaken mandatory health and safety training i.e. food hygiene, moving/handling and fire safety. Several staff had also attended first aid training and there was always someone on duty who had done this training. Infection control training had not however, been undertaken by several of the staff team and this must be addressed. A manual was however, in place, which staff could refer to as necessary. Health and safety policies and procedures were provided and included COSHH. Accident reporting internally and as required by RIDDOR was undertaken and the CSCI appropriately informed. Meavy View DS0000025484.V255924.R01.S.doc Version 5.0 Page 23 SCORING OF OUTCOMES This page summarises the assessment of the extent to which the National Minimum Standards for Care Homes for Older People have been met and uses the following scale. The scale ranges from: 4 Standard Exceeded 2 Standard Almost Met (Commendable) (Minor Shortfalls) 3 Standard Met 1 Standard Not Met (No Shortfalls) (Major Shortfalls) “X” in the standard met box denotes standard not assessed on this occasion “N/A” in the standard met box denotes standard not applicable CHOICE OF HOME Standard No Score 1 2 3 4 5 6 ENVIRONMENT Standard No Score 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 X X 3 X X N/A HEALTH AND PERSONAL CARE Standard No Score 7 2 8 3 9 X 10 3 11 X DAILY LIFE AND SOCIAL ACTIVITIES Standard No Score 12 2 13 3 14 X 15 3 COMPLAINTS AND PROTECTION Standard No Score 16 X 17 X 18 3 3 X X X X X X X STAFFING Standard No Score 27 3 28 2 29 x 30 2 MANAGEMENT AND ADMINISTRATION Standard No 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 Score X X 2 X X 3 X 3 Meavy View DS0000025484.V255924.R01.S.doc Version 5.0 Page 24 Are there any outstanding requirements from the last inspection? NO STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS This section sets out the actions, which must be taken so that the registered person/s meets the Care Standards Act 2000, Care Homes Regulations 2001 and the National Minimum Standards. The Registered Provider(s) must comply with the given timescales. No. 1 Standard OP7 Regulation 15 Requirement Care plans must be fully completed for all residents and kept updated on a monthly basis. Risk assessments must be undertaken for any risk areas identified. Residents must be consulted about what they would like including in the activity programme. Such programme must address the needs of groups and individuals of differing abilities. The toilet, which is currently out of use, must be upgraded in order it can be used by the residents. At least 50 of the care staff must have attained NVQ level 2 by December 2005. All new staff must undertake induction and foundation training to the TOPSS specification. Infection control training must be undertaken by all staff. Timescale for action 30/11/05 2 3 OP7 OP12 13 16 30/11/05 30/11/05 4 OP19 23 30/11/05 5 6 7 OP28 OP29 OP38 18 18 18 31/12/05 31/12/05 31/01/06 Meavy View DS0000025484.V255924.R01.S.doc Version 5.0 Page 25 RECOMMENDATIONS These recommendations relate to National Minimum Standards and are seen as good practice for the Registered Provider/s to consider carrying out. No. 1 2 3 Refer to Standard OP12 OP15 OP33 Good Practice Recommendations In order to ensure that stimulating activities are offered daily, a staff member should be designated who will be responsible for making sure the programme is followed. Large print menus or a menu board should be displayed in order the residents know what is on offer at meal times. Satisfaction questionnaires should be regularly distributed to residents, relatives/friends and professional visitors to the home in order to monitor the quality of the service provided. Resident meetings should be introduced in order to ascertain their views about the care they receive and obtain ideas for improving the service. 4 OP33 Meavy View DS0000025484.V255924.R01.S.doc Version 5.0 Page 26 Commission for Social Care Inspection Bolton, Bury, Rochdale and Wigan Office Turton Suite Paragon Business Park Chorley New Road Horwich, Bolton BL6 6HG 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 Meavy View DS0000025484.V255924.R01.S.doc Version 5.0 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!