Inspection on 14/02/06 for Meavy View

This inspection was carried out on 14th February 2006.

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

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

Other inspections for this house

Meavy View 20/08/07

Meavy View 27/09/06

Meavy View 10/10/05

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 14th February 2006 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.V281576.R01.S.doc Version 5.1 Page 2 This is a report of an inspection to assess whether services are meeting the needs of people who use them. The legal basis for conducting inspections is the Care Standards Act 2000 and the relevant National Minimum Standards for this establishment are those for Care Homes for Older People. They can be found at www.dh.gov.uk or obtained from The Stationery Office (TSO) PO Box 29, St Crispins, Duke Street, Norwich, NR3 1GN. Tel: 0870 600 5522. Online ordering: www.tso.co.uk/bookshop This report is a public document. Extracts may not be used or reproduced without the prior permission of the Commission for Social Care Inspection. Meavy View DS0000025484.V281576.R01.S.doc Version 5.1 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.V281576.R01.S.doc Version 5.1 Page 4 SERVICE INFORMATION Conditions of registration: 1. 2. The home is registered 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. 10th October 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.V281576.R01.S.doc Version 5.1 Page 5 SUMMARY This is an overview of what the inspector found during the inspection. The inspection, which was unannounced, took the inspector 5 hours. A pharmacy inspector also visited and spent 3 hours looking at the medication systems in place. Care plans, activities and some records were looked at as well as parts of the building. In order to obtain information about the home, time was spent talking to 6 residents, 2 relatives, the manager, 2 carers, the administrator, and a domestic and 2 visiting social workers. What the service does well: What has improved since the last inspection? More resident meetings had taken place so that the staff could find out what they thought about the service they were getting. The staff had been trying to arrange more activities in the afternoons so that residents would not become bored. There was however, room for further improvement in this area, especially for the frailer people. The toilet, which was out of use at the last inspection, had now been repaired. Meavy View DS0000025484.V281576.R01.S.doc Version 5.1 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.V281576.R01.S.doc Version 5.1 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.V281576.R01.S.doc Version 5.1 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): The core standards 3 and 6 were assessed at the last inspection. EVIDENCE: Meavy View DS0000025484.V281576.R01.S.doc Version 5.1 Page 9 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&9 Whilst residents’ health and social care needs were being well met, the documentation did not reflect the good care given as there was no clear or consistent care planning system in place. Although systems were in place to facilitate the safe handling of medicines, some records could be better completed and the handling of creams and nutritional supplements needs to be improved. EVIDENCE: Four files were inspected, for residents admitted to the home over the last 3 months. Whilst they contained pre-admission information and risk assessments for skin care (Waterlows), nutrition, moving and handling and falls, 3 did not contain care plans. One resident, who had been admitted to the home 7 days before the inspection, had been assessed at high risk of falls and high risk in relation to skin care. Staff reports and handover information, indicated staff were aware of the identified problems and were taking appropriate steps to ensure the safety and well-being of the person. Appropriate pressure relieving aids were also in place but none of this information had been transferred to a care plan. The manager said they were waiting to see this resident’s relatives so they could undertake the care plan in Meavy View DS0000025484.V281576.R01.S.doc Version 5.1 Page 10 consultation with them. Given the high risk assessed areas, this must be done without further delay. The other two residents had come into the home in December 2005 on respite stays, with a view to becoming permanent. The manager stated this was why care plans were not in place. It is essential that all residents have a plan of care, irrespective of whether they are short or long term residents, so that all aspects of their health, personal and social care needs are identified and met. In the main, care plans for residents who had been in the home for longer periods had been regularly reviewed and updated. It was however, identified that where one resident’s mental health was deteriorating, the care plan had not been updated to reflect this, nor did it state what action the home were taking to address the identified problems. Staff on duty demonstrated their knowledge and awareness of this person’s mental health condition, but lack of information on the care plan could result in inconsistent care being given. Accurate and up to date care planning was a shortfall identified at the last inspection and it was disappointing to note that no progress had been made in this area. The manager, who is very experienced in the care planning process, should offer training to the care assistants who are responsible for the compiling and updating of the care plans. The care plans should be compiled, in consultation with residents and/or relatives and signed to show they are in agreement with the care plan contents. Medication policies and procedures were available within the home but a homely remedies procedure had not been implemented. Following written assessment one resident is supported to self-administer his inhalers. However, where residents apply their own creams assessments have not been completed and self-administration was not evident from the records examined. Trained carers administer all other medicines. The medication administration records (MARs) were generally up-to-date but records were not consistently made when nutritional supplements or external preparations were administered. Handwritten MAR were not signed, checked and countersigned and some had not been fully completed to include the records month and year. The medication storage was secure and orderly. However, there was evidence that when new medication deliveries were made, new and existing supplies were mixed into one container. Additionally, it was evident that Lactulose and Movicol were not always administered from residents’ own supplies. The pharmacy inspector has written a separate more detailed report, which has been sent directly to the home and this contained the requirements and recommendations made to rectify the shortfalls. Meavy View DS0000025484.V281576.R01.S.doc Version 5.1 Page 11 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 & 14 Whilst the provision of social activities had improved for the more independent residents, those who were mentally frail would benefit from more one to one activities and stimulation. Residents were assisted and encouraged to exercise choices in their daily routines, which meant they continued to enjoy their chosen lifestyles. EVIDENCE: Standard 12 was fully assessed at the last inspection, but re-assessed on this visit to measure what improvements had been made in relation to the social activity programme. A programme was displayed in two lounges and included armchair exercises, ball games, writing and drawing, reminiscence, jigsaws and singalongs. In addition 2 outside entertainers visited the home each month. Two of the residents who took part in the activities said they were not always organised and that the day before the inspection, the armchair exercises had not been offered. The manager confirmed this, saying that staff were being kept busy settling in the new residents who had recently come to live at the home. Since the last inspection in October up until the end of December, the staff had been keeping a diary of the activities they had done with the residents and also Meavy View DS0000025484.V281576.R01.S.doc Version 5.1 Page 12 who had taken part. From these recordings, it was clear that activities had improved although it was usually the same residents who benefited from the activities, either by choice or frailty. The staff said they did try to spend some time each day sitting chatting to people on a one to one basis but that this was not recorded. In November 2005, the manager had taken one resident out on 2 occasions, once to the Garden Centre and once to Touchstones museum. Several people had enjoyed an outing to Hollingworth Lake in the summer. Plans were in place for another trip to Hollingworth Lake together with a fish and chip lunch in the next fortnight. At a residents meeting, which had been held on 6 January 2006, the residents had requested weekly bingo. This had not yet been organised as the manager said it needed at least 4 staff and herself to assist residents with their cards. As this is an activity that has been requested, the manager should draw on extra resources for the short time this activity would take. Residents said they had enjoyed the Christmas activities when two church choirs and a brass band had visited the home. The residents spoken with were all satisfied with their chosen daily routines. They said they had choices in what to eat, where to sit, when to go to bed, use of their room whenever they wanted, whether or not to join in the activities and what to wear. One resident said he did not like bathing every week and that staff respected this and gave him a good wash every day. Residents are encouraged to bring personal possessions in to personalise their rooms and this was evident on the inspection. When residents can no longer handle their own finances, the home encourages them to use external agents i.e. a solicitor, who will act in their interests. Meavy View DS0000025484.V281576.R01.S.doc Version 5.1 Page 13 Complaints and Protection The intended outcomes for Standards 16 - 18 are: 16. 17. 18. Service users and their relatives and friends are confident that their complaints will be listened to, taken seriously and acted upon. Service users’ legal rights are protected. Service users are protected from abuse. The Commission considers Standards 16 and 18 the key standards to be inspected at least once during a 12 month period. JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for the following standard(s): 16 The home has a satisfactory complaints system with evidence that service users feel their views are listened to and acted upon. EVIDENCE: Over the last 12 months, the Commission for Social Care Inspection (CSCI) have not had cause to investigate any complaints at the home. All residents and the relatives spoken with said they would feel able to complain about anything and that their problems would be listened to by the manager, who would sort things out. A copy of the complaints procedure was displayed in the hallway and also contained in the service user guide. It was however, missing from the policy/procedure manual and the manager said she would ensure it was replaced. The home had a complaints book but there were no entries in it. From discussion with the manager, it was identified that she, and the staff team, had thought the book was for entering formal complaints investigated by the CSCI. She said she had investigated one or two grumbles which had been satisfactorily resolved. In the future, she agreed that all such grumbles and/or complaints would be appropriately logged, together with the action taken to resolve them. Meavy View DS0000025484.V281576.R01.S.doc Version 5.1 Page 14 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): The premises were clean and hygienic offering a pleasant environment to the residents. EVIDENCE: The building was clean and free from any offensive odours. All the residents and the relatives interviewed were very satisfied with the cleanliness within the home. The laundry is situated in the basement and it was well equipped with a washer with sluice programme, two smaller washers and two driers. The laundry assistant was off sick and so the domestics were undertaking some of the laundry duties, together with care assistants as and when necessary. In order to prevent the spread of infection liquid soap and paper towels were provided in toilets, laundry and bathrooms. They were also provided in the residents’ bedrooms, where staff assisted with personal care tasks. In addition, there was a plentiful supply of disposable gloves and aprons and staff wore blue aprons when serving and assisting with food. Satisfactory infection control policies and procedures were in place, which staff were adhering to. Meavy View DS0000025484.V281576.R01.S.doc Version 5.1 Page 15 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 & 29 Staffing levels and skill mix of staff were adequate to meet the needs of the present resident group. Satisfactory recruitment and selection practices were in place to safeguard residents. EVIDENCE: Inspection of rotas showed that sufficient care staff were provided to meet the needs of the present resident group. Feedback from residents was positive with regard to the manager and staff team and observations on the day of inspection provided further evidence of staffs’ skill and kindly manner. The night staff were especially commended by one resident who said “if you ring your bell at night, there’s no long faces, they come very quickly and are always friendly”. Staff morale was high and there had been a very low turnover of staff over the past 12 months, thus ensuring that residents received consistent care. Provision of ancillary staff was adequate although, as stated above, the laundry assistant had been off sick for several months and the domestics and carers were undertaking laundry duties. On the day of the inspection, the cook was on leave but arrangements for the cook from the sister home, Meavy House, had been made, with the provider undertaking the cooking at Meavy House. Meavy View DS0000025484.V281576.R01.S.doc Version 5.1 Page 16 As a follow up from the last inspection, it was identified that whilst the home had still not met the required 50 ratio of staff trained to NVQ level 2 standard, they were moving towards it. A further 6 care assistants were waiting to start their NVQ level 2 training over the next few weeks. Staff recruitment policies/procedures were in place and these were being adhered to. Although the home were undertaking all relevant checks before taking on new staff, the policy did not refer to Criminal Record Bureau and Protection of Vulnerable Adult checks being done and this should be added. There had been no new staff commence work since the last inspection so the personnel files of 2 carers, who had started worked in the home as domestics, were inspected. The files were orderly and contained all the required information e.g. identity photographs, application forms, contracts of employment, 2 references, health questionnaires and Criminal Record Bureau checks. The manager said new staff were given the General Social Care Council “Code of Conduct” upon starting work in the home and there was a plentiful supply of this publication in the office. Induction training was followed up at this inspection, due to shortfalls being identified at the previous inspection in October 2005. Whilst the two carers were said to be undertaking induction training to the TOPSS standard, no evidence of this was available as they both had their induction booklets with them and they were not on duty. It was however, identified that the induction and foundation training had taken in excess of 6 months and this must now be addressed as a priority. Whilst both staff had done moving/handling and food hygiene training, they had not yet undertaken infection control training, which again had been identified at the last inspection. The manager said arrangements were being made for this training to be done. Meavy View DS0000025484.V281576.R01.S.doc Version 5.1 Page 17 Management and Administration The intended outcomes for Standards 31 – 38 are: 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. Service users live in a home which is run and managed by a person who is fit to be in charge, of good character and able to discharge his or her responsibilities fully. Service users benefit from the ethos, leadership and management approach of the home. The home is run in the best interests of service users. Service users are safeguarded by the accounting and financial procedures of the home. Service users’ financial interests are safeguarded. Staff are appropriately supervised. Service users’ rights and best interests are safeguarded by the home’s record keeping, policies and procedures. The health, safety and welfare of service users and staff are promoted and protected. The Commission considers Standards 31, 33, 35 and 38 the key standards to be inspected at least once during a 12 month period. JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for the following standard(s): 31 & 35 The manager provides strong leadership, guidance and support to staff to ensure residents receive a consistently good standard of care. Effective policies/procedures were in place to ensure that residents’ financial interests are safeguarded. EVIDENCE: The manager is registered with the Commission for Social Care Inspection and has managed the home for almost 7 years. Previous to working in the residential care homes sector, she had worked as a Registered General Nurse, although she has not kept her training updated. She has no formal management qualification and does not wish to undertake the Registered Managers Award, due to impending retirement in October of this year. She has however, undertaken many training courses and was Meavy View DS0000025484.V281576.R01.S.doc Version 5.1 Page 18 booked on 2 courses that week, a palliative care course run by the local Hospice and a half day nutrition course. Feedback from residents about the manager was excellent. They said “she’s right for the job”, “we couldn’t have a better manager” and “I feel she really cares”. Policies/procedures were in place in respect of the handling of residents’ finances. The administrator is responsible for the handling of all monies and an effective system was in place whereby income and outgoings were recorded. and receipts for purchases retained. The money and records for 3 residents was checked and all found to be in order. Where residents are not able to continue to control their finances, the home advises them to use a solicitor and records were seen to show this was happening. Secure facilities were provided for the safekeeping of money and valuables on behalf of residents. Records were seen where one of the more recently admitted residents, had handed over items for safekeeping. He had been given a receipt and a duplicate was held with the items deposited. Meavy View DS0000025484.V281576.R01.S.doc Version 5.1 Page 19 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 X X X X HEALTH AND PERSONAL CARE Standard No Score 7 1 8 X 9 2 10 X 11 X DAILY LIFE AND SOCIAL ACTIVITIES Standard No Score 12 X 13 X 14 2 15 X COMPLAINTS AND PROTECTION Standard No Score 16 3 17 X 18 X X X X X X X X 3 STAFFING Standard No Score 27 3 28 X 29 3 30 X MANAGEMENT AND ADMINISTRATION Standard No 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 Score 3 X X X 3 X X X Meavy View DS0000025484.V281576.R01.S.doc Version 5.1 Page 20 Are there any outstanding requirements from the last inspection? YES STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS This section sets out the actions, which must be taken so that the registered person/s meets the Care Standards Act 2000, Care Homes Regulations 2001 and the National Minimum Standards. The Registered Provider(s) must comply with the given timescales. No. 1. Standard OP7 Regulation 15 Requirement Care plans must be in place for each resident, including those on respite and be fully completed. (Previous timescale of 30/11/05 not met). The activity programme must be implemented and address the needs of groups and individuals of differing abilities. (Previous timescale of 30/11/05 not met). At least 50 of the care staff must attain NVQ level 2. (Previous timescale of 21/12/05 not met). All new staff must undertake induction and foundation training to the TOPSS specification within 6 weeks and 6 months respectively. (Timescale of 31/12/05 not met). Timescale for action 28/02/06 2. OP12 16 10/03/06 3. OP28 18 30/09/06 4. OP29 18 31/03/06 Meavy View DS0000025484.V281576.R01.S.doc Version 5.1 Page 21 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 OP7 OP7 OP12 Good Practice Recommendations All staff responsible for this task should undertake care plan training. Care plans should be compiled in consultation with residents and/or relatives and signed to show their agreement. 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. A diary or daily record should be re-introduced showing which residents have taken part in the planned activity and where residents have identified an activity they would like to do e.g. bingo, it should be implemented. The recruitment policy/procedure should be amended to include the obtaining of CRB and POVA checks. 4. OP12 5. OP29 Meavy View DS0000025484.V281576.R01.S.doc Version 5.1 Page 22 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.V281576.R01.S.doc Version 5.1 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!