Inspection on 29/05/07 for Milton Court Care Centre

This inspection was carried out on 29th May 2007.

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

Milton Court Care Centre 09/06/08

Similar services:

St Vincents

The Cotswold Home

Winton House

Newbeech House

Rush Court

Hillyfield Rest Home

The Maypole Nursing Centre

The Briars

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

CARE HOMES FOR OLDER PEOPLE Milton Court Care Centre Tunbridge Grove Kents Hill Milton Keynes Buckinghamshire MK7 6JD Lead Inspector Annette Miller Unannounced Inspection 29th May 2007 10:30 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 DS0000068919.V335826.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 2 This is a report of an inspection to assess whether services are meeting the needs of people who use them. The legal basis for conducting inspections is the Care Standards Act 2000 and the relevant National Minimum Standards for this establishment are those for Care Homes for 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. DS0000068919.V335826.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 3 SERVICE INFORMATION Name of service Milton Court Care Centre Address Tunbridge Grove Kents Hill Milton Keynes Buckinghamshire MK7 6JD 01908 699555 01908 398150 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) Restful Homes Group Ltd Mr Guy Horwood Care Home 148 Category(ies) of Dementia (148), Old age, not falling within any registration, with number other category (148) of places DS0000068919.V335826.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 4 SERVICE INFORMATION Conditions of registration: 1. That people aged 50 years and over can be admitted to the home within the above categories noted on the certificate. This is the first inspection of this service. Date of last inspection Brief Description of the Service: Milton Court Care Centre is located in a residential area close to the shops and amenities of the Kingston Centre, with central Milton Keynes just 3 miles away. The home is purpose built offering spacious accommodation for up to 148 residents in single en-suite accommodation. The main building accommodates up to 135 people over four floors in single rooms with en-suite facilities. A lift is provided. Each floor has its own communal lounges and dining rooms. There is a detached annex intended for independent living with 13 en-suite rooms, each with a kitchenette. There is a garden at the back of the home with a patio. The forecourt at the front of the building provides extensive car parking. The fees for this home range from £550.00 per week to £900.00 per week. DS0000068919.V335826.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 5 SUMMARY This is an overview of what the inspector found during the inspection. This inspection was unannounced and was conducted over 7½ hours starting at 10.30 am. The inspector looked at how well the home was meeting the national minimum standards set by the government and has in this report made judgements about the standard of service provided. The inspector toured the building and spoke to residents to find out what life in the home was like. Three residents were case-tracked. This means their care records were looked at in detail and the arrangements around their care observed. The inspector spoke to four residents and 4 relatives in private, as well as other residents in the lounges during the inspection. The inspector spoke to the registered manager about management arrangements and to members of staff to find out what level of support and training was provided. The registered owner was also present throughout. The Commission for Social Care Inspection sent out ‘Have your Say’ questionnaires prior to the inspection to obtain people’s views of the service. Nine residents, one relative and two care professionals responded. Their views are referred to in this report. What the service does well: The home is well managed by a committed team of senior staff. The manager, supported by the owner, ensures there are good training opportunities available to help staff increase their knowledge and skills in their area of work. Updates in mandatory training are regularly held to ensure residents and staff are safeguarded. The home provides spacious accommodation that is attractively decorated and furnished. Cleanliness was found to be particularly good throughout the home. The inspector received very good comments from residents and relatives about the staff, such as: “Staff excel themselves in showing kindness and patience”; “My mother has difficulty getting the words out, but they listen and never rush her”; “Staff are respectful and caring”. DS0000068919.V335826.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 6 What has improved since the last inspection? What they could do better: The emergency admission procedure should be reviewed to ensure residents are given sufficient information about the home before they move in, or as soon as they are well enough to want the information. There should be reference about this procedure in the home’s Statement of Purpose so that the procedure is clear. A list of staff signatures with initials should be kept for those staff responsible for giving medication. This is to ensure that in the event of a query the initials easily identify the person concerned. There is a limited range of activities provided within the home and community. Consideration needs to be given to how this can be improved so that there are regular opportunities for residents to take part in stimulating and motivating activities. Menus should be kept under review to ensure individual likes and dislikes are taken account of. When residents need to have food liquidised, individual foods should be liquidised separately. This is to ensure that residents experience different tastes and that the meal looks appetising. The allocation of staff should be kept under review to ensure sufficient carers are available during busy periods, such as mealtimes. Induction procedures should be reviewed to ensure induction is delivered in line with the home’s policies and procedures. The review should also consider whether induction provides new workers with the training and support they need to do their job well. DS0000068919.V335826.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 7 Please contact the provider for advice of actions taken in response to this inspection. The report of this inspection is available from enquiries@csci.gsi.gov.uk or by contacting your local CSCI office. The summary of this inspection report can be made available in other formats on request. DS0000068919.V335826.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 8 DETAILS OF INSPECTOR FINDINGS CONTENTS Choice of Home (Standards 1–6) Health and Personal Care (Standards 7-11) Daily Life and Social Activities (Standards 12-15) Complaints and Protection (Standards 16-18) Environment (Standards 19-26) Staffing (Standards 27-30) Management and Administration (Standards 31-38) Scoring of Outcomes Statutory Requirements Identified During the Inspection DS0000068919.V335826.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 9 Choice of Home The intended outcomes for Standards 1 – 6 are: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Prospective service users have the information they need to make an informed choice about where to live. Each service user has a written contract/ statement of terms and conditions with the home. No service user moves into the home without having had his/her needs assessed and been assured that these will be met. Service users and their representatives know that the home they enter will meet their needs. Prospective service users and their relatives and friends have an opportunity to visit and assess the quality, facilities and suitability of the home. Service users assessed and referred solely for intermediate care are helped to maximise their independence and return home. The Commission considers Standards 3 and 6 the key standards to be inspected. JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for the following standard(s): 3. Quality in this outcome area is good. This judgement has been made using available evidence including a visit to this service. The personalised needs assessment means that people’s diverse needs are identified and planned for before they move into the home. Intermediate care (Standard 6) is not provided. EVIDENCE: Prospective residents have a full needs assessment before any decisions are taken to admit a person. This ensures that only the people whose care needs can be fully met are admitted. The manager carries out these assessments either in the person’s own home, or in hospital if that is where they are at the time. The inspector looked at one pre-admission assessment and found it contained a good range of relevant and appropriate information on which to base a care plan. DS0000068919.V335826.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 10 Emergency admissions are only accepted when the manager is able to obtain sufficient information about the person’s care needs. In these situations assessments are usually done through telephone conversations with the prospective resident, or other people involved in the person’s care. One resident commented on a CSCI questionnaire that they had been admitted as an emergency and did not consider they had enough information about the home. The manager should review the emergency admission procedure to ensure people are provided with appropriate information before admission, or soon after admission. The inspector noted there was no reference in the home’s Statement of Purpose about emergency admissions and this information is needed so that the home’s procedures are clearly set out. Most people who returned CSCI questionnaires said they had received enough information about the home before moving in and made comments such as: “Very helpful advice given”; “Shown around several times and able to choose own room”. A relative contacted the Commission for Social Care Inspection (CSCI) to say: “I would like to mention the manager who helped me tremendously arranging for my mother to enter into the home. I will be eternally grateful for his professionalism and compassion”. DS0000068919.V335826.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 11 Health and Personal Care The intended outcomes for Standards 7 – 11 are: 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. The service user’s health, personal and social care needs are set out in an individual plan of care. Service users’ health care needs are fully met. Service users, where appropriate, are responsible for their own medication, and are protected by the home’s policies and procedures for dealing with medicines. Service users feel they are treated with respect and their right to privacy is upheld. Service users are assured that at the time of their death, staff will treat them and their family with care, sensitivity and respect. The Commission considers Standards 7, 8, 9 and 10 the key standards to be inspected. JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for the following standard(s): 7, 8, 9 and 10. Quality in this outcome area is good. This judgement has been made using available evidence including a visit to this service. The care planning system provides staff with the information they need to meet residents’ needs. Personal support is offered in such a way that promotes and protects residents’ privacy, dignity and independence. EVIDENCE: The care plans of three residents were looked at in detail and they each contained clear information about each person’s care needs, as well as giving information to staff about what they had to do to provide the care the person required. Care plans are regularly reviewed to ensure people’s changing needs are taken account of in a timely way. The home has a good range of aids and equipment that are well maintained to ensure people’s safety. For example, following a thorough assessment of a person’s skin condition, pressure relieving mattresses and cushions are provided when needed. One resident said his ‘special’ mattress was very comfortable and was helping to heal the pressure sore he had when he was admitted. DS0000068919.V335826.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 12 The majority of comments made by residents on the CSCI questionnaires and during the inspection, indicated a high level of satisfaction with all aspects of their care, such as: “I am just here on respite – but I really wish I could stay longer.” “Milton Court was like a breath of fresh air when we first visited. Nothing seemed to be too much trouble for the staff, who maintain a cheerful, friendly and professional approach.” “The staff excel themselves in showing kindness, patience, and they talk to those of us staying for a few months or a few weeks, and not to each other over our heads”. Some concerns were raised about accessing medical care. Seven GP practices currently provide a GP service, but only visit when a resident is too ill to go to the surgery. This means that residents have to go to their GP practice for nonurgent consultations, accompanied by a relative, friend, or member of staff. People do not find this satisfactory and the owner said he was trying to arrange a contract with doctors to visit the home regularly. The medication storage facilities were checked on the dementia care unit and were satisfactory. Every resident had a medication record chart and the charts looked at were complete with the required entries. A list of signatures with initials should be kept for staff involved in administering medication. This is to ensure that in the event of a query the initials easily identify the member of staff involved. All staff are instructed on how to treat residents with respect. A resident said: “We are treated as individuals and as real people, not as a problem to be tolerated, or worse”. Another resident said: “The staff are respectful and caring and the facilities are superb”. Residents said staff knock on their door before entering and always call them by their preferred term of address. From the evidence seen by the inspector and comments received, the inspector considers that this service would be able to provide a service to meet the needs of individuals of various religious, racial or cultural needs. DS0000068919.V335826.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 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. JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for the following standard(s): 12, 13, 14 and 15. Quality in this outcome area is adequate. This judgement has been made using available evidence including a visit to this service. Residents’ diverse needs are well met and people are generally supported in their individual choices. However, the limited range of activities within the home and community provide insufficient opportunities for people to participate in stimulating and motivating activities, EVIDENCE: At present activities are limited and this was commented on by a number of residents who said: “We need more activities”; “More activities and in particular walks would be very welcome”; “ Little or no activities most weeks.” Staff said they arranged activities, such as board games and quizzes, whenever they could, but had little time to do this as well as their other duties. A member of the clergy visited recently and a resident said this was the first religious service she had attended since she was admitted, although more visits are now planned. A musical evening was planned and residents were looking forward to this. Clearly, the provision of interesting and meaningful options to choose from is improving, but more needs to be done to improve this aspect of life in the home. DS0000068919.V335826.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 14 Many residents choose to socialise in the lounges, but can stay in their room if they prefer. There are large screen plasma television sets, DVD players and music systems in all lounges. A popular meeting place is the café area near to the main reception, where residents and their visitors can make hot drinks whenever they wish. A visitor said he thought this arrangement was very good because he liked making a drink for his relative and himself to enjoy together in a sociable atmosphere. Alcoholic drinks are also provided by the home. People said they liked the homely atmosphere that staff helped to create. There is a small area of garden running along the back of the home currently being landscaped, with a further small area of adjacent land not owned by the home that adjoins a public footpath. The owner intends speaking to the person owning this land to request it is kept tidy. A patio with garden furniture is provided. The inspector understands there is also a courtyard with raised beds and a range of tables and chairs providing a secure area of garden for people with dementia, accessed from the dementia care unit by means of a lift. This area was not inspected during the inspection. A comment by a resident and a relative indicated there were limited opportunities to go outside for exercise and fresh air. This aspect of daily life needs to be reviewed to ensure residents who wish to go out are assisted to do so. Residents gave mixed views of the food. One thought it was “excellent”, another said “a good selection is always on offer”, but one resident was clearly dissatisfied with the standard of meals provided. One relative thought there was too much pizza and pasta, as these were not foods older people liked, particularly his own relative. The inspector checked the menu and saw that pasta did not feature regularly, but when discussing the day’s menu with the chef found that pasta had replaced one of the evening choices, suggesting that pasta is on the menu more often than the menu indicates. The manager needs to review this to ensure meals are balanced and nutritious, and that changes to the menu are not common practice. During lunch the inspector observed a liquidised meal that looked unappetising. A relative also raised this as an issue. Individual foods should be liquidised separately so that residents can enjoy the appearance of food and also experience different tastes. The manager said he had given instructions that this was how meals should be presented and would find out why it was not happening. DS0000068919.V335826.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 15 Complaints and Protection The intended outcomes for Standards 16 - 18 are: 16. 17. 18. Service users and their relatives and friends are confident that their complaints will be listened to, taken seriously and acted upon. Service users’ legal rights are protected. Service users are protected from abuse. The Commission considers Standards 16 and 18 the key standards to be. JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for the following standard(s): 16 and 18. Quality in this outcome area is good. This judgement has been made using available evidence including a visit to this service. The home has a robust complaints system with evidence that residents feel their views are listened to and acted upon. The vulnerable adults procedure ensures a proper response to any suspicion or allegation of abuse. EVIDENCE: Prospective residents are provided with the complaints procedure and a copy is available within the home. The manager said the home had not received any complaints since it opened and no complainant has contacted CSCI with information about a complaint. 8 of the 9 residents who returned CSCI questionnaires said they knew how to complain. During induction staff are required to sign a declaration confirming they are aware of the home’s policies and procedures on the protection of vulnerable adults. The manager said that training updates are regularly arranged to keep staff up to date with these policies and procedures to ensure residents are safeguarded. DS0000068919.V335826.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 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. JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for the following standard(s): 19, 23 and 26. Quality in this outcome area is good. This judgement has been made using available evidence including a visit to this service. The standard of accommodation throughout provides residents with a comfortable and homely place to live. EVIDENCE: Milton Court Care Centre is a purpose-built care home providing accommodation on the ground and three upper floors. It was opened in December 2006 and is gradually increasing occupancy. At the time of inspection neither the middle two floors, nor the annex intended for independent living, were occupied. The inspector visited three bedrooms (two on the ground floor and one on the top floor) to speak to residents in private. The rooms looked comfortable and homely, and were spacious. Residents had personalised their rooms with their own belongings and were very happy with their accommodation. All bedrooms are single with en-suite facilities of shower, washbasin and toilet. A resident said: “The décor and rooms are lovely”. DS0000068919.V335826.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 17 The use of CCTV cameras is restricted to entrance areas for security purposes only and does not intrude on the daily life of service users. Cleanliness was exceptionally good throughout the home and it was apparent that the domestic team work hard to keep the home clean and smelling fresh for people living there. 8 of the 9 residents who returned comment cards said the home was “always” fresh and clean; 1 said “usually”. One person commented the home was “spotless”. The home has a robust infection control policy. This requires all staff to receive training in basic infection control and to have a senior member of the care team as the home’s designated co-ordinator for infection control. This was not checked at this inspection. DS0000068919.V335826.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 18 Staffing The intended outcomes for Standards 27 – 30 are: 27. 28. 29. 30. Service users’ needs are met by the numbers and skill mix of staff. Service users are in safe hands at all times. Service users are supported and protected by the home’s recruitment policy and practices. Staff are trained and competent to do their jobs. The Commission consider all the above are key standards to be inspected. JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for the following standard(s): 27, 28, 29 and 30. Quality in this outcome area is good. This judgement has been made using available evidence including a visit to this service. Staffing levels are generally good enabling staff to provide the care that people need. However, allocation of staff during busy times of the day, for example mealtimes, needs to be kept under review to ensure carers are available when residents need them. Residents are safeguarded through the good vetting and recruitment procedures that are in place, as well as the training opportunities provided. EVIDENCE: Residents have confidence with the staff team, shown by the many positive comments made about staff, both on the day of inspection and in CSCI questionnaires, such as: “The staff are very caring, but also well organised“; “My mother has difficulty getting the words out, but staff listen and never rush her.” Staffing levels on the day of inspection were good. There was one registered nurse and 5 carers on the ground floor for 22 residents, and 1 registered nurse and 2 carers on the top floor for 16 residents. The registered manager was also on duty, as well as the administrator, chef and 3 cleaning staff. The maintenance person was working, but was covering a vacancy in the kitchen whilst checks on a newly appointed kitchen assistant were obtained. DS0000068919.V335826.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 19 Some staff raised concerns about staffing levels, saying there were not always enough staff on duty, although agreed staffing was good on the day of inspection. The inspection was unannounced so staffing levels could not have been adjusted. Residents also raised some concerns about staffing levels, particularly around mealtimes when delays in serving meals in the dining rooms and to residents in their room, were experienced. However, most responses on the CSCI questionnaires showed that residents thought members of staff were “always” or “usually” available when they needed them. It appears that when there is staff sickness it is not always possible to provide cover, which means there could be a reduction of one carer in staffing levels. Also, carers are involved in preparing, serving and clearing away suppers, which gives them less time with residents. The manager explained that this would be resolved soon as it was planned to have a catering assistant on duty during this period. The inspector found that occasionally on weekday evenings, and frequently at weekends, there was only one registered nurse on duty. The inspector questioned the appropriateness of this and the manager said that when the newly appointed deputy manager and another registered nurse started, it would be achievable to have two nurses on duty. Three personnel files were looked at to find out if the necessary information and checks had been obtained before starting new workers. The inspector found that the standard of vetting and recruitment was good with appropriate checks being carried out ensuring residents’ safety. Training records showed a good range of training opportunities and level of attendance. Recent training includes dementia awareness, which 11 nurses and carers were currently undertaking through distance learning. Of the 16 carers employed, four have NVQ level 3 and four have NVQ level 2, which meets the government’s minimum training target for carers. The manager confirmed that induction training was provided and showed the inspector a copy of the workbook given to new staff, based on the Skills for Care induction standards. However, two staff did not have a good understanding of induction and did not recall being given a workbook to complete. Therefore, induction procedures should be reviewed to ensure induction is delivered in line with the home’s policies and procedures and provides new workers with the training and support they need to do their job well. DS0000068919.V335826.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 20 Management and Administration The intended outcomes for Standards 31 – 38 are: 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. Service users live in a home which is run and managed by a person who is fit to be in charge, of good character and able to discharge his or her responsibilities fully. Service users benefit from the ethos, leadership and management approach of the home. The home is run in the best interests of service users. Service users are safeguarded by the accounting and financial procedures of the home. Service users’ financial interests are safeguarded. Staff are appropriately supervised. Service users’ rights and best interests are safeguarded by the home’s record keeping, policies and procedures. The health, safety and welfare of service users and staff are promoted and protected. The Commission considers Standards 31, 33, 35 and 38 the key standards to be inspected. JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for the following standard(s): 31, 33, 35 and 38. Quality in this outcome area is good. This judgement has been made using available evidence including a visit to this service. The home is well managed and is run in the best interests of the people living there. EVIDENCE: The manager is an experienced registered nurse, having worked in both the NHS and private healthcare for a number of years. He has managed the care home since it was opened and has been instrumental in developing policies and procedures that underpin the work of the home. The inspector received extremely good comments about the way in which the home was managed, such as: “Senior management very good; “The home is very well run”. DS0000068919.V335826.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 21 Also, staff said they thought the manager was approachable and that they felt able to discuss any concerns they had with him. The manager has not yet obtained a management qualification and this is needed for Standard 31 to be assessed as ‘fully met’. The manager said he was planning to start the necessary management training soon. Quality assurance monitoring systems are being developed to obtain feedback from people who use the service. This enables the manager to identify where improvements are needed. For example, during May 2007 questionnaires were sent out for residents to comment on the environment. The home has efficient systems to ensure effective safeguarding and management of individual’s money including record keeping. The administrator confirmed that money held on behalf of residents was separate to the company’s finances. The organisation takes seriously its responsibility to ensure the safety of people living in the home, as well as staff and visitors. This is achieved through good policies and procedures that underpin staff practice. There is a maintenance person who regularly undertakes safety checks with records kept. External contractors are employed as and when needed to check specialist equipment. Information provided by the manager showed that safety checks are carried out regularly to ensure residents’ safety. Training records provided evidence of the mandatory health and safety training that had taken place. For example during May 2007 fire training and also handling and moving training was provided with records of attendance kept. DS0000068919.V335826.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 22 SCORING OF OUTCOMES This page summarises the assessment of the extent to which the National Minimum Standards for Care Homes for Older People have been met and uses the following scale. The scale ranges from: 4 Standard Exceeded 2 Standard Almost Met (Commendable) (Minor Shortfalls) 3 Standard Met 1 Standard Not Met (No Shortfalls) (Major Shortfalls) “X” in the standard met box denotes standard not assessed on this occasion “N/A” in the standard met box denotes standard not applicable CHOICE OF HOME Standard No Score 1 2 3 4 5 6 ENVIRONMENT Standard No Score 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 X X 3 X X N/A HEALTH AND PERSONAL CARE Standard No Score 7 3 8 3 9 3 10 4 11 X DAILY LIFE AND SOCIAL ACTIVITIES Standard No Score 12 2 13 3 14 3 15 2 COMPLAINTS AND PROTECTION Standard No Score 16 3 17 X 18 3 3 X X X 4 X X 3 STAFFING Standard No Score 27 3 28 3 29 3 30 2 MANAGEMENT AND ADMINISTRATION Standard No 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 Score 2 X 3 X 3 X X 3 DS0000068919.V335826.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 23 Are there any outstanding requirements from the last inspection? FIRST 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. 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 Refer to Standard OP1 Good Practice Recommendations The emergency admission procedure should be reviewed to ensure residents are given sufficient information about the home before admission, or shortly after. There should be reference about this procedure in the home’s Statement of Purpose. A list of staff signatures with initials should be kept for those staff responsible for giving medication. This is to ensure that in the event of a query the initials easily identify the member of staff involved. More opportunities should be provided within the home and community for residents to participate in stimulating and motivating activities. Menu choices should be kept under review to ensure people’s likes and dislikes are taken account of. Individual foods should be liquidised separately so that residents can enjoy different tastes and that the meal looks appetising. DS0000068919.V335826.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 24 2 OP9 3 4 5 OP12 OP15 OP15 6 7 OP27 OP30 The allocation of staff should be kept under review to ensure sufficient carers are available during busy periods, such as mealtimes, to assist residents. Induction procedures should be reviewed to ensure induction is delivered in line with the home’s policies and procedures. The review should also check that induction provides new workers with the training and support they need to do their job well. DS0000068919.V335826.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 25 Commission for Social Care Inspection Oxford Office Burgner House 4630 Kingsgate Oxford Business Park South Cowley, Oxford OX4 2SU National Enquiry Line: Telephone: 0845 015 0120 or 0191 233 3323 Textphone: 0845 015 2255 or 0191 233 3588 Email: enquiries@csci.gsi.gov.uk Web: www.csci.org.uk © This report is copyright Commission for Social Care Inspection (CSCI) and may only be used in its entirety. Extracts may not be used or reproduced without the express permission of CSCI DS0000068919.V335826.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 26 - Please note that this information is included on www.bestcarehome.co.uk under license from the regulator. Re-publishing this information is in breach of the terms of use of that website. Discrete codes and changes have been inserted throughout the textual data shown on the site that will provide incontrovertable proof of copying in the event this information is re-published on other websites. The policy of www.bestcarehome.co.uk is to use all legal avenues to pursue such offenders, including recovery of costs. You have been warned!