Inspection on 15/12/06 for 1-2 Newton Court

This inspection was carried out on 15th December 2006.

CSCI has not published a star rating for this report, though using similar criteria we estimate that the report is Excellent. 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

1-2 Newton Court 24/02/06

1-2 Newton Court 27/09/05

1-2 Newton Court 18/01/05

1-2 Newton Court 31/08/04

Similar services:

Coopers Mill Ltd

Pocklington House

Bramley Avenue (73)

Paradise Lodge

Grangewood

Upaya Ananda

Kings Lane (32)

Pemdale

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

CARE HOME ADULTS 18-65 Newton Court (1-2) Stowe Hill Road Paston Ridings, Peterborough PE4 6PY Lead Inspector Dragan Cvejic Key Unannounced Inspection 16th December 2006 10:00 Newton Court (1-2) DS0000015128.V324733.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 1 The Commission for Social Care Inspection aims to: • • • • Put the people who use social care first Improve services and stamp out bad practice Be an expert voice on social care Practise what we preach in our own organisation Reader Information Document Purpose Author Audience Further copies from Copyright Inspection Report CSCI General Public 0870 240 7535 (telephone order line) This report is copyright Commission for Social Care Inspection (CSCI) and may only be used in its entirety. Extracts may not be used or reproduced without the express permission of CSCI www.csci.org.uk Internet address Newton Court (1-2) DS0000015128.V324733.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 2 This is a report of an inspection to assess whether services are meeting the needs of people who use them. The legal basis for conducting inspections is the Care Standards Act 2000 and the relevant National Minimum Standards for this establishment are those for Care Homes for Adults 18-65. They can be found at www.dh.gov.uk or obtained from The Stationery Office (TSO) PO Box 29, St Crispins, Duke Street, Norwich, NR3 1GN. Tel: 0870 600 5522. Online ordering: www.tso.co.uk/bookshop This report is a public document. Extracts may not be used or reproduced without the prior permission of the Commission for Social Care Inspection. Newton Court (1-2) DS0000015128.V324733.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 3 SERVICE INFORMATION Name of service Newton Court (1-2) Address Stowe Hill Road Paston Ridings, Peterborough PE4 6PY 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) 01733 325713 01733 325713 michelle.oreilly@sense.org.uk www.sense.org.uk Sense, The National Deafblind and Rubella Association Michelle O`Reilly Care Home 6 Category(ies) of Learning disability (6), Sensory impairment (6) registration, with number of places Newton Court (1-2) DS0000015128.V324733.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 4 SERVICE INFORMATION Conditions of registration: 1. Learning Disability only in association with Sensory Impairment Date of last inspection 24th February 2006 Brief Description of the Service: Sense East, a national charity for people with dual sensory loss, is the registered provider for 1-2 Newton Court. The home provides accommodation and support to six people with dual sensory impairment and in some cases with an associated learning disability. The home is situated in a residential area, approximately 2 miles from Peterborough city centre. Local shops are within walking distance and a bus service is available. The home is part of a terrace of four houses. Numbers one and two have been connected to form one property. The premises provide six single bedrooms, a kitchen/dining and two sitting rooms. There are two bathrooms, four WCs and one shower room. The fees currently payable are in the range of £1147 to £2054, assessed and payable by the local authority for each individual. The home accepted the fee set by this assessment. Newton Court (1-2) DS0000015128.V324733.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 5 SUMMARY This is an overview of what the inspector found during the inspection. This was an unannounced inspection carried out during 3 hours. The main methodology was case tracking two out of six service users. One of them was spoken to with help for interpreting from the deputy manager. The main method for getting evidence directly from service users was observation, while the staff and the manager were spoken to. A tour of the house and reading documents was also used to obtain evidence. Some information was collected from regular monthly reports sent to the CSCI after monthly visits from the responsible individual. A new area manager visited the home at the same time, with the responsible individual, and met with the manager, staff, users and the inspector. A BSL interpreter was also consulted about the service. What the service does well: What has improved since the last inspection? All requirements and recommendations from the previous inspection were acted upon and some addressed aspects now exceeded standards, such as the level of NVQ trained staff, or appropriateness of training for users’ conditions. Safety was further improved and checked by the appropriate authorities, such as fire procedure and safety that were inspected by the fire brigade in October, Newton Court (1-2) DS0000015128.V324733.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 6 showing that the home carried out all required work to meet the safety requirements. A new training programme and regular attendance, for example 3 training events in August, also showed how the addressed aspects were taken seriously and improved well beyond minimum standards. Records, including care plans and risk assessments, were first improved by adding required details, but then by introducing a new, better format. The organisation reacted on recommendation about medication and reviewed and designed a new medication procedure, significantly improving safety for service users and clearly defining the responsibilities of staff dealing with medication. The manager and staff constantly monitored service and provisions and, with excellent support from the organisation’s management team, were aiming to further improve care and support for service users. 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. The summary of this inspection report can be made available in other formats on request. Newton Court (1-2) DS0000015128.V324733.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 7 DETAILS OF INSPECTOR FINDINGS CONTENTS Choice of Home (Standards 1–5) Individual Needs and Choices (Standards 6-10) Lifestyle (Standards 11-17) Personal and Healthcare Support (Standards 18-21) Concerns, Complaints and Protection (Standards 22-23) Environment (Standards 24-30) Staffing (Standards 31-36) Conduct and Management of the Home (Standards 37 – 43) Scoring of Outcomes Statutory Requirements Identified During the Inspection Newton Court (1-2) DS0000015128.V324733.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 8 Choice of Home The intended outcomes for Standards 1 – 5 are: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Prospective service users have the information they need to make an informed choice about where to live. Prospective users’ individual aspirations and needs are assessed. Prospective service users know that the home that they will choose will meet their needs and aspirations. Prospective service users have an opportunity to visit and to “test drive” the home. Each service user has an individual written contract or statement of terms and conditions with the home. The Commission consider Standard 2 the key standard to be inspected. JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for the following standard(s): 1,2,3,4,5 Quality in this outcome area is excellent. This judgement has been made using available evidence including a visit to this service. The home carried out an effective and comprehensive assessment prior to offering a place to potential users to ensure that they could make a clear and informed choice. The home exceeded minimum standard requirements. EVIDENCE: The home produced information about the services and provisions in two formats, one for people with impairments and one for the general public. Documents were carefully designed, so they could be understood by readers. The staff recorded their intention to explain documents to a newly admitted service user and recorded: “Tried to explain by using signs, but no effects.” However, the user’s family were given documents in an ordinary format and signed the user’s documents including the contract. The home exceeded minimum standards, and demonstrated that through their intentions to inform all relevant people in the right format of their services and provisions. The file of the newly admitted service user demonstrated how the home ensured that all available information was gathered to ensure that the right decision about the potential of the home to meet the assessed needs was made. Trial visits, the trial period, constant communication with the user, with Newton Court (1-2) DS0000015128.V324733.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 9 his family, with the funding authority and with relevant health care professionals, ensured that the user and his carers and supporters could make an informed decision about their choice of home. The assessment covered healthcare needs, cultural and occupational needs, risk management, specific needs and equipment and methods of communication among the other information collected. The home clearly demonstrated how they exceeded the standard. All the inspected files demonstrated how the needs of these three service users were met. Skills and understating of the staff for user’s needs, preferences, individuality and specialist user’ needs’ helped the manager clearly show how the home exceeded the standard. The contract was devised for the funding authority and relatives, but also for users with impairments. Appropriate formats were not all the home offered. They tried to communicate information, even when effects were minimal or there were no effects of these attempts. Contact in Braille and with pictures was explained by staff who also had some impairments, and were fully aware of the abilities of users with severe impairments to understand. Newton Court (1-2) DS0000015128.V324733.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 10 Individual Needs and Choices The intended outcomes for Standards 6 – 10 are: 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. Service users know their assessed and changing needs and personal goals are reflected in their individual Plan. Service users make decisions about their lives with assistance as needed. Service users are consulted on, and participate in, all aspects of life in the home. Service users are supported to take risks as part of an independent lifestyle. Service users know that information about them is handled appropriately, and that their confidences are kept. The Commission considers Standards 6, 7 and 9 the key standards to be inspected. JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for the following standard(s): 6,7,8,9 Quality in this outcome area is excellent. This judgement has been made using available evidence including a visit to this service. Service users were in control of their lives through involvement in care plans, risk assessments and participation in running the home and instructing carers how they wanted to be supported. EVIDENCE: Care plans were devised from the well organised information gathered at the referral point, from trial period information and from the home’s own observations and assessment during the initial process. The plans were firstly improved by adding information and then by redesigning the format to present the plan in a concise, clear way with all the necessary information. The user’s documentation was kept in two folders and divided into “domains” addressing needs, physical development, finances and risks. Newton Court (1-2) DS0000015128.V324733.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 11 Most users were aware of their care plans, usually signed by their relatives. Parts of the plan were in picture format and contained direct input from users, containing their comments. A user spoke to the inspector with the help of deputy manager who translated using BSL: “Yes, I love it here. Everything is OK. Staff are respectful and nice.” One of the plans described that a user could get agitated, but the information explained what caused this, what the preliminary signs were, what the actual symptoms were, what the staff action should be to prevent it happening, to minimise effects and offer aftercare. In the other plan a description of how independence was promoted stated that a user did her own food shopping, while supported on a one-to-one basis by staff. The plans contained users’ preferences regarding food, company, communication and preferential activities. Risk assessments were, in particular, detailed, and addressed all potential hazards with clearly stated actions how to reduce or minimise the risk. The home was separately drawing up risk assessments associated with particular events, such was a shopping outing for one individual in Milton Keynes. One of the risk assessments stated: “Lacks communication skills to complain” and gave instruction on how to recognise potential dissatisfaction. The picture format portraying self advocating by using body position as a response to potential asthma attack or food choice, again demonstrated the extent to which plans were made to allow users to make own decisions, to take extra risks with appropriate support and to take part and participate in the home’s life. Regular reviews of care plans and risk assessments, in presence of users, their relatives, representatives and with BSL interpreters ensured that users’ individuality and personal abilities were promoted far beyond minimum standards. Newton Court (1-2) DS0000015128.V324733.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 12 Lifestyle The intended outcomes for Standards 11 - 17 are: 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. Service users have opportunities for personal development. Service users are able to take part in age, peer and culturally appropriate activities. Service users are part of the local community. Service users engage in appropriate leisure activities. Service users have appropriate personal, family and sexual relationships. Service users’ rights are respected and responsibilities recognised in their daily lives. Service users are offered a healthy diet and enjoy their meals and mealtimes. The Commission considers Standards 12, 13, 15, 16 and 17 the key standards to be inspected. JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for the following standard(s): 11,12,13,14,15,16,17 Quality in this outcome area is good. This judgement has been made using available evidence including a visit to this service. The service users were able to control their lives and were supported to exercise choice, independence, their rights, and to explore reasonable risks. EVIDENCE: When a new service user was admitted to home, a full and detailed assessment was carried out and allowed the home to identify the user’s abilities, preferences, aspirations and needs. This information was the base for creating the lifestyle for each individual. One of the case tracked users continued with individual food shopping supported on a one-to-one principle by staff. The other user was observed using inductive loop headphones for enjoying music, an opportunity he wanted when he came to this home. Newton Court (1-2) DS0000015128.V324733.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 13 One service user wanted to contribute to the running of the home by carrying out some meaningful work. The home offered her the opportunity to volunteer in the office one day a week and created a job description for her. She was included in the supervision programme. Most service users had allocated one-to-one time with staff, for that extra support they needed to engage in their preferred activities. The new user had regular one-to-one outings for bowling. Another user had a set “Community day”. The home had their own minibus, but users were not limited in using public transport and taxis when they wanted to go out. The home paid particular attention to relationships users developed amongst themselves and observed interactions between users demonstrated their good relationships. All users’ interests were recorded in their files in sufficient detail. Staff with impairments used the same communication methods as service users and promoted interactions whereby users felt very comfortable entering into interactions with staff. The menu folder not only addressed a healthy eating guide but even contained recipes for particular meals that service users liked. The choice of food for users was improved when the picture format of menus was introduced. Restriction of some foods was also recorded: “… must not have chocolate due to chocolate triggering migraine.” This standard exceeded the basic minimum. Newton Court (1-2) DS0000015128.V324733.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 14 Personal and Healthcare Support The intended outcomes for Standards 18 - 21 are: 18. 19. 20. 21. Service users receive personal support in the way they prefer and require. Service users’ physical and emotional health needs are met. Service users retain, administer and control their own medication where appropriate, and are protected by the home’s policies and procedures for dealing with medicines. The ageing, illness and death of a service user are handled with respect and as the individual would wish. The Commission considers Standards 18, 19, and 20 the key standards to be inspected. JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for the following standard(s): 18,19,20 Quality in this outcome area is excellent. This judgement has been made using available evidence including a visit to this service. The home respected service users wishes, privacy and dignity when their healthcare was dealt with. Service users were protected with clear and safe healthcare and medication procedures and practices and appropriate involvement of external professionals, including BSL interpreters. EVIDENCE: Care plans of case tracked service users described personal care elements. A picture format of “keeping healthy” in users’ files’ explained the body posture that a user needed to move into in case of a potential asthma attack. In the mobility section there was an explanation of how the user should walk to avoiding walk on tiptoes. Toileting was explained in detail with instructions to staff on how to help the user as he wanted and was beneficial to him. Special inductive loop headphones helped him listen to and enjoy music. Not only health and social care external professionals, but BSL interpreters too were called to review meetings and when users needed external support. Newton Court (1-2) DS0000015128.V324733.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 15 Health care needs were clearly identified in care plans and the agreed actions were recorded in users’ files. For example, the guidance and support for eating was also described in files. The potential risk of self injury was identified, assessed, external professionals were consulted, as well as user’s relatives to minimise the risk, and risk assessments were regularly reviewed. There was a graphical incident analysis for another user that was used to minimise the risk. The records showed how the home exceeded standards of health care for service users. The organisation reviewed their medication procedure to improve an already good system. The medication procedure that was implemented in the home ensured safe handling, storage and recording of medication. A written agreement was obtained for a case tracked user to use non-prescription cough mixture. Records of medication for 3 service users were inspected and demonstrated good systems in place. Newton Court (1-2) DS0000015128.V324733.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 16 Concerns, Complaints and Protection The intended outcomes for Standards 22 – 23 are: 22. 23. Service users feel their views are listened to and acted on. Service users are protected from abuse, neglect and self-harm. The Commission considers Standards 22, and 23 the key standards to be inspected. JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for the following standard(s): 22,23 Quality in this outcome area is excellent. This judgement has been made using available evidence including a visit to this service. The home valued highly the safety of service users and a number of procedures and policies were in place to ensure the users’ protection. The home exceeded minimum standards in this area. EVIDENCE: Apart from having a clear and understandable complaints procedure, the home risk assessed a user who “Lacks the communication skills to complain.” The home’s complaints records showed two old entries from 2001 and 2005. There were no further recent complaints. Measures to protect service users from any kind of abuse were in place. Financial protection was ensured through the organisation’s system and records of users transactions were signed by two members of staff. Relatives of users were also involved in managing users’ finances. Letters about users’ money and benefits addressed to them were kept in users’ files. The organisation regularly informed users’ social workers of any change regarding users’ finances, so that both the organisation and social services could ensure full financial protection. Service users assessed as potentially self harming were protected by preventative care and measures described in their files. The home identified and recorded usual triggers of agitation for service users in order to minimise risks and reduce reoccurrences, thus reducing incidents and accidents and protecting service users. The conditions in the home and in the users’ Newton Court (1-2) DS0000015128.V324733.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 17 bedrooms were monitored in order to protect them, as, for example, a risk assessment indicated potential agitation for a service user in hot conditions. The procedure for staff to express their potential concerns was also displayed in the home. The home exceeded expected standard measures to protect service users. Newton Court (1-2) DS0000015128.V324733.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 18 Environment The intended outcomes for Standards 24 – 30 are: 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. Service users live in a homely, comfortable and safe environment. Service users’ bedrooms suit their needs and lifestyles. Service users’ bedrooms promote their independence. Service users’ toilets and bathrooms provide sufficient privacy and meet their individual needs. Shared spaces complement and supplement service users’ individual rooms. Service users have the specialist equipment they require to maximise their independence. The home is clean and hygienic. The Commission considers Standards 24, and 30 the key standards to be inspected. JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for the following standard(s): 24,30 Quality in this outcome area is good. This judgement has been made using available evidence including a visit to this service. The service users felt free and comfortable in a safe and well maintained, familiar environment where their movements were not restricted. EVIDENCE: The home was adapted to and suitable for service users. The doorbell was connected to the light, so that staff and users with impairments could be warned. The sensory room was well equipped and provided a room for relaxation, and for assessments too. The communal areas in the home were comfortable and three case tracked users were observed in a lounge enjoying familiar environment. The home was well maintained and any faults were dealt with immediately. The fire door self closing, addressed on the previous inspection, was repaired and fully functional. The home set the weekly check to ensure functionality. The home was clean and safe and provided a homely environment with the facilities suitable for users’ needs. Infection control measures were in place. Newton Court (1-2) DS0000015128.V324733.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 19 Newton Court (1-2) DS0000015128.V324733.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 20 Staffing The intended outcomes for Standards 31 – 36 are: 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. Service users benefit from clarity of staff roles and responsibilities. Service users are supported by competent and qualified staff. Service users are supported by an effective staff team. Service users are supported and protected by the home’s recruitment policy and practices. Service users’ individual and joint needs are met by appropriately trained staff. Service users benefit from well supported and supervised staff. The Commission considers Standards 32, 34 and 35 the key standards to be inspected. JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for the following standard(s): 32,33,34,35 Quality in this outcome area is excellent. This judgement has been made using available evidence including a visit to this service. The staff team was skilled, experienced and able to meet the service users needs. Some staff with similar impairments used that as an advantage in understanding and meeting users’ needs. Very well organised staff exceeded minimum standards. EVIDENCE: The home was fully staffed and staff were skilled, knowledgeable, motivated and committed. Several staff members also suffered some impairments, but they used their personal experience to understand and care for service users in the best way. Staff knew their roles and responsibilities. The aims and objectives of the home were displayed in the framed printouts in the office, but staff almost did not have this display, as they were fully aware of them. Staff knew their limits and relied on external professionals when there was a need for that. Staff had all necessary qualities and qualifications to support and care for service users. Respect towards service users was observed during the Newton Court (1-2) DS0000015128.V324733.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 21 inspection. Effective communication with service users was seen, as staff and users with similar impairments used the same communication methods: sign language. Staff knowledge of the users’ conditions exceeded just an understanding of users’ conditions, as some of them themselves suffered some degree of the same impairments. The percentage of NVQ qualified staff of 78 exceeded minimum standards. The staff team was compact and supportive to each other. One male staff member helped the home in their intention to ensure balance regarding gender. Regular staff meetings were held once a month and the minutes were on display in the office. All staff were familiar with and fluent in sign language that users and some staff used. The English Braille Alphabet was also displayed in the office. The home exceeded this standard. Two staff files were checked and contained all documents to demonstrate that the recruitment procedure was carried out appropriately. The organisation offered a very good training programme to staff. The staff spoken to confirmed that the training topics were relevant and helped them to do their job better. The training department communicated with the home and it was easy for staff to require training they considered useful. Apart from the very good induction, the manager organised a “Policy of the Month”, whereby all staff individually reviewed a particular policy and their comments were shared during the staff meeting. Relevant policies were translated into Braille or interpreted to users and staff when it was necessary. Supervision was regular and staff felt well supported. The BSL interpreters were also called for supervision sessions. Staff found the training on Autism and Challenging Behaviour extremely useful. The home ensured protection of staff, too. Newton Court (1-2) DS0000015128.V324733.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 22 Conduct and Management of the Home The intended outcomes for Standards 37 – 43 are: 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. Service users benefit from a well run home. Service users benefit from the ethos, leadership and management approach of the home. Service users are confident their views underpin all self-monitoring, review and development by the home. Service users’ rights and best interests are safeguarded by the home’s policies and procedures. Service users’ rights and best interests are safeguarded by the home’s record keeping policies and procedures. The health, safety and welfare of service users are promoted and protected. Service users benefit from competent and accountable management of the service. The Commission considers Standards 37, 39, and 42 the key standards to be inspected. JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for the following standard(s): 37,38,39,40,41,42 Quality in this outcome area is excellent. This judgement has been made using available evidence including a visit to this service. The home promoted and encouraged safe working practices and listened to staff and service users to identify all potential hazards and minimise them. Service users were protected, but still allowed to exercise autonomy, individuality and creativity. EVIDENCE: The manager of the home was exceptional. She was motivated, knowledgeable, creative and open. She led the home successfully towards its aims and objectives. Service users and staff benefited from her creativity in her approach to policies and procedures. The working practices were well set, so that the home operated to the same standards when the manager was ill or Newton Court (1-2) DS0000015128.V324733.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 23 absent. Her abilities and achievements determined the judgement of an excellent rating for the day-to-day operation of the home. The quality assurance survey was carried out from the organisation’s head office and results of the surveys were returned to the manager to organise feedback to participants. Self monitoring was supported by very good support from the senior management team of the organisation. Policies and procedures were presented in an appropriate format to service users too, ensuring an open and creative management style and the involvement of service users in running the home. Staff signatories on reviewed policies demonstrated that policies were not only a paper exercise, but guiding tools for staff to achieve their goals. Records kept in the home were well organised, structured and kept up to date. Safe working practices were in place. The home’s monitoring procedure ensured that the home included external professionals and authorities in monitoring safety. The fire officer was called to inspect the home, when the fire doors were adjusted and repaired. Records of individual accidents/incidents were presented in individual files in a graphic style, allowing effective analysis and appropriate measures to reduce and minimise further occurrences to be taken. Newton Court (1-2) DS0000015128.V324733.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 24 SCORING OF OUTCOMES This page summarises the assessment of the extent to which the National Minimum Standards for Care Homes for Adults 18-65 have been met and uses the following scale. The scale ranges from: 4 Standard Exceeded 2 Standard Almost Met (Commendable) (Minor Shortfalls) 3 Standard Met 1 Standard Not Met (No Shortfalls) (Major Shortfalls) “X” in the standard met box denotes standard not assessed on this occasion “N/A” in the standard met box denotes standard not applicable CHOICE OF HOME Standard No Score 1 4 2 4 3 4 4 4 5 4 INDIVIDUAL NEEDS AND CHOICES Standard No 6 7 8 9 10 Score CONCERNS AND COMPLAINTS Standard No Score 22 3 23 4 ENVIRONMENT Standard No Score 24 3 25 X 26 X 27 X 28 X 29 X 30 3 STAFFING Standard No Score 31 3 32 4 33 4 34 3 35 4 36 4 CONDUCT AND MANAGEMENT OF THE HOME Standard No 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 Score 4 3 3 4 X LIFESTYLES Standard No Score 11 3 12 4 13 3 14 3 15 3 16 3 17 4 PERSONAL AND HEALTHCARE SUPPORT Standard No 18 19 20 21 Score 4 4 3 X 4 4 3 4 3 3 X Newton Court (1-2) DS0000015128.V324733.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 25 No Are there any outstanding requirements from the last inspection? STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS This section sets out the actions, which must be taken so that the registered person/s meets the Care Standards Act 2000, Care Homes Regulations 2001 and the National Minimum Standards. The Registered Provider(s) must comply with the given timescales. No. 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. Refer to Standard Good Practice Recommendations Newton Court (1-2) DS0000015128.V324733.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 26 Commission for Social Care Inspection Cambridgeshire & Peterborough Area Office CPC1 Capital Park Fulbourn Cambridge CB21 5XE 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 Newton Court (1-2) DS0000015128.V324733.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 27 - Please note that this information is included on www.bestcarehome.co.uk under license from the regulator. Re-publishing this information is in breach of the terms of use of that website. Discrete codes and changes have been inserted throughout the textual data shown on the site that will provide incontrovertable proof of copying in the event this information is re-published on other websites. The policy of www.bestcarehome.co.uk is to use all legal avenues to pursue such offenders, including recovery of costs. You have been warned!