Please wait

Please note that the information on this website is now out of date. It is planned that we will update and relaunch, but for now is of historical interest only and we suggest you visit cqc.org.uk

Inspection on 10/04/07 for Northfield Nursing Home

Also see our care home review for Northfield Nursing Home for more information

This inspection was carried out on 10th April 2007.

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.

What follows are excerpts from this inspection report. For more information read the full report on the next tab.

What the care home does well

Residents said that the care they were receiving was good. Residents consistently added comments such as" staff are lovely "and two residents said that the "staff are attentive and listen to me" and another resident said, "It`s great here". Relatives and health professionals made comments such as "the staff are caring" and "the care at Northfield is very good". The inspector observed that residents were well dressed in clean clothes and had received a good standard of personal care. Some residents said they enjoyed the activities available at the home. The activities coordinator was keen to include as many residents as possible in different types of activities. The inspector was pleased to hear that the activity coordinator spent time on some mornings speaking to the residents who chose not to join in with the group activities. Residents said that they had a choice of food and that the quality of food served was good. The home was clean and tidy. No unpleasant odours were noticeable in the home. Relatives and residents said that the home was always kept clean. Staff said they were encouraged to attend training on various care topics and that there were good training opportunities available to them. Residents, staff and relatives said that they met regularly with the managers of the home and spoke positively about their approachability and helpfulness.

What has improved since the last inspection?

Some residents` needs had been reassessed whilst they had been resident in the home. This enabled staff to continue to meet the residents needs. A refurbishment of the home has continued. Carpets and furniture has been replaced and large areas of the home have been redecorated. Staff were receiving comprehensive induction training in the first two months of their employment. There has been a recent residents meeting with the management of the home to seek the views of the residents of Northfield. Improved procedures had been introduced to safeguard residents` financial interests. There had been improvements in the records kept relating to health and safety issues. Staff had received moving and handling training.

What the care home could do better:

Some care plans must be improved to ensure that staff are able to know what to do for each resident. Staff must produce documentary evidence to show that they have adequately monitored resident`s healthcare needs. Residents and/or relatives need to be involved in the drawing up and evaluation of the care plans. Safe procedures must be followed when administering and disposing of any medication. Staff must receive regular fire safety training.

CARE HOMES FOR OLDER PEOPLE Northfield Nursing Home 2a Roebuck Road Sheffield South Yorkshire S6 3GP Lead Inspector Michael O`Neil Key Unannounced Inspection 10th April 2007 09:15 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 DS0000021798.V331434.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. DS0000021798.V331434.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 3 SERVICE INFORMATION Name of service Northfield Nursing Home Address 2a Roebuck Road Sheffield South Yorkshire S6 3GP 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) 0114 268 7827 0114 267 9591 lynne@palmsrow.co.uk www.palmsrow.co.uk Palms Row Health Care Limited Post Vacant Care Home 63 Category(ies) of Old age, not falling within any other category registration, with number (63) of places DS0000021798.V331434.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 4 SERVICE INFORMATION Conditions of registration: 1. The service may admit persons between the ages of 60 to 65 years. Date of last inspection 10th April 2006 Brief Description of the Service: Northfield is a care home providing personal and nursing care. Accommodation is provided for 63 people. The home is owned by Palms Row Health Care and is situated in the residential area of Crookesmoor. It is close to the main bus route and is a short walk away from the Upperthorpe shopping area. The home is purpose built with accommodation provided on two floors, which are accessed, by a lift. There is a garden area that is safe and private for residents to enjoy. The grounds are accessible and well laid out, the garden sitting areas are attractive and well maintained. The manager confirmed that from 10.04.07 the weekly range of fees charged for accommodation and care varied from £381-£514. Additional charges are made for services such as chiropody, newspapers and hairdressing. DS0000021798.V331434.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 key inspection carried out by Mike O’Neil, regulation inspector. This visit took place between the hours of 09:15 am and 4:25 pm. Wendy Hobbs, care manager, and Michele Kenworthy, business manager were present during the visit. The managers submitted a pre inspection questionnaire to the CSCI prior to the actual visit to the home. Some information from the questionnaire is included in the main body of the report. The CSCI sent out questionnaires asking health professionals, residents, relatives and staff about the care and the service provided. There was a positive response and the CSCI received 5 health professional, 2 staff and 4 resident/relative questionnaires back. Opportunity was taken to make a partial tour of the premises, inspect a sample of care records, check records relating to the running of the home, check the homes policies and procedures and talk to 7 staff, 3 relatives and 7 residents. The inspector wishes to thank the staff, relatives and residents for their time, friendliness and co-operation throughout the inspection process. A copy of the previous inspection report was displayed and available in the foyer of the home. Information about how to raise any issues of concern or make a complaint was on display in the foyer. What the service does well: Residents said that the care they were receiving was good. Residents consistently added comments such as” staff are lovely ”and two residents said that the “staff are attentive and listen to me” and another resident said, “It’s great here”. Relatives and health professionals made comments such as “the staff are caring” and “the care at Northfield is very good“. The inspector observed that residents were well dressed in clean clothes and had received a good standard of personal care. Some residents said they enjoyed the activities available at the home. The activities coordinator was keen to include as many residents as possible in different types of activities. The inspector was pleased to hear that the activity DS0000021798.V331434.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 6 coordinator spent time on some mornings speaking to the residents who chose not to join in with the group activities. Residents said that they had a choice of food and that the quality of food served was good. The home was clean and tidy. No unpleasant odours were noticeable in the home. Relatives and residents said that the home was always kept clean. Staff said they were encouraged to attend training on various care topics and that there were good training opportunities available to them. Residents, staff and relatives said that they met regularly with the managers of the home and spoke positively about their approachability and helpfulness. What has improved since the last inspection? What they could do better: DS0000021798.V331434.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 7 Some care plans must be improved to ensure that staff are able to know what to do for each resident. Staff must produce documentary evidence to show that they have adequately monitored resident’s healthcare needs. Residents and/or relatives need to be involved in the drawing up and evaluation of the care plans. Safe procedures must be followed when administering and disposing of any medication. Staff must receive regular fire safety training. 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. DS0000021798.V331434.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 DS0000021798.V331434.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): Standards 3 and 4. Standard 6 is not applicable to this home. Quality in this outcome area is good. This judgement has been made using available evidence including a visit to this service. Residents’ assessments prior to admission took place. These enabled staff to be aware of residents needs to ensure that they could be met. Some residents’ needs had been reassessed whilst they had been resident in the home. This enabled staff to continue to meet the residents needs. This home does not provide intermediate care services. DS0000021798.V331434.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 10 EVIDENCE: Two resident files were checked and each contained a copy of their full needs assessments. The information from the full needs assessment had been incorporated into one of the two resident care plans. The manager said that assessments had now been completed by Sheffield Social Services, to see if the residents were appropriately placed at the home and not “out of category”. The manager confirmed that the home were now able to meet all the residents needs. Details of medical/nurse specialists who had been consulted with regard to the residents care were recorded in the care plans. This will assist in ensuring residents needs are met. DS0000021798.V331434.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): Standards 7, 8, 9 and 10. Quality in this outcome area is adequate. This judgement has been made using available evidence including a visit to this service. The information in one care plan was inadequate to ensure that the resident’s health needs could be met. The other care plan checked was of a good standard and the residents’ health; social and personal care needs were well documented. Residents themselves said that the care they were receiving was good and that the staff were helpful, friendly and nice. Staff were failing to adequately monitor one residents health care needs. Some medication practices provide a risk to the residents’ health and welfare. Residents said their privacy was upheld at the home. DS0000021798.V331434.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 12 EVIDENCE: Two resident care plans were checked. Two previous requirements made had not been met. One care plan checked did set out the resident’s individual needs and the action required by staff to ensure those needs were met. However Staff, when writing the residents daily notes, needed to be more reflective of the information actually recorded in the residents care plan. Documenting “care as plan” is insufficient and not specific enough to actually detail the care delivered by staff to the resident. Within the other care plan checked it was found that staff had failed to develop a care plan for a resident who was admitted to the home six days earlier. It should be noted that this particular resident had complex health needs and needed a high level of care. This made the need the need for a care plan even more significant. There was no evidence in either care plan to suggest that the resident or their relatives were involved in the drawing up or the reviewing of the care plans. Staff interviewed generally showed a good knowledge of the residents diagnosis and their health and social needs. However in one instance the nursing staff were failing to adequately monitor a resident’s hydration and skin integrity healthcare needs. The inspector discussed these inadequacies with a nurse and the two managers. Residents said that the care they were receiving was good. Residents consistently added comments such as” staff are lovely ”and two residents said that the “staff are attentive and listen to me” and another resident said, “It’s great here”. Relatives and health professionals made comments such as “the staff are caring” and “the care at Northfield is very good“. The inspector observed that residents were well dressed in clean clothes and had received a good standard of personal care. Medicines were securely stored around the home in locked cupboards. Residents’ health and safety, however, was not maintained because Staff were failing to follow safe procedures in relation to the recording, administering and disposal of medication. A staff member had failed to sign 8 resident Medicine Administration Records (MAR). The inspector checked these records over 2 hours after the staff member said they had dispensed the medication. DS0000021798.V331434.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 13 Medicines waiting to be returned to pharmacy had been placed in a large bin in a locked room. The bin was not sealed and several hundred tablets were loose (not in containers or blister packs) in the bin. All the residents and relatives spoken with said that the staff were respectful and friendly. They commented on the hardworking and kind nature of the staff team. The inspector saw staff consistently treating residents in respectful and friendly way. DS0000021798.V331434.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 14 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): Standards 12, 13, 14 and 15. Quality in this outcome area is good. This judgement has been made using available evidence including a visit to this service. Residents had a choice of lifestyle within the home and they were able to maintain contact with family and friends ensuring that they continue to be involved in community life. Meals served at the home were of a good quality and offered choice to ensure residents receive a healthy balanced diet. EVIDENCE: Residents said they were able to get up and go to bed when they chose, and were seen to walk freely around the home, if able. Relatives spoken to said they were able to visit at any time and were made to feel very welcome. Some comments had been made on the questionnaires returned to the CSCI regarding choices and frequencies of the number of baths a resident could have. The inspector checked the issue of choice in 3 residents care plans. The DS0000021798.V331434.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 15 plans did clearly indicate the residents’ preferences on personal care and general lifestyle. Some residents said they enjoyed the activities available at the home, whilst other residents said that they chose not to join in with the activities arranged. Activities were advertised around the home. Some activities that residents had participated in were recorded in their care plans. The inspector spoke with the activities coordinator. The coordinator showed great enthusiasm about her role and was keen to include as many residents as possible in different types of activities. The inspector was pleased to hear that the activity coordinator spent time on some mornings speaking to the residents who chose not to join in with the group activities. The chef was very enthusiastic about his job and was very keen to ensure the residents were offered a varied choice of meals. The chef showed good knowledge of the special diets some resident’s needs. Residents said that they had a choice of food and that the quality of food served was good. Lunch was served in a pleasant relaxed manner and residents were sat at tables, which had been nicely set. Residents said that they enjoyed their lunch. DS0000021798.V331434.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 16 Complaints and Protection The intended outcomes for Standards 16 - 18 are: 16. 17. 18. Service users and their relatives and friends are confident that their complaints will be listened to, taken seriously and acted upon. Service users’ legal rights are protected. Service users are protected from abuse. The Commission considers Standards 16 and 18 the key standards to be. JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for the following standard(s): Standards 16 and 18. Quality in this outcome area is good. This judgement has been made using available evidence including a visit to this service. Complaints procedures are in place to enable residents and relatives to feel confident that any concerns they voice will be listened to. Staff had an understanding of the procedures to be followed should they suspect any abuse at the home, so helping to ensure residents are protected from abuse. EVIDENCE: Complaints procedures were displayed in the home. Residents and relatives said that if they had any concerns that they would feel comfortable in talking to the manager and they knew that the problems would be dealt with immediately. Staff interviewed had received training on adult protection and were aware that there were procedures in place to report any concerns. There was regular staff training on adult protection. DS0000021798.V331434.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 17 Environment The intended outcomes for Standards 19 – 26 are: 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. Service users live in a safe, well-maintained environment. Service users have access to safe and comfortable indoor and outdoor communal facilities. Service users have sufficient and suitable lavatories and washing facilities. Service users have the specialist equipment they require to maximise their independence. Service users’ own rooms suit their needs. Service users live in safe, comfortable bedrooms with their own possessions around them. Service users live in safe, comfortable surroundings. The home is clean, pleasant and hygienic. The Commission considers Standards 19 and 26 the key standards to be inspected. JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for the following standard(s): Standards 19, 21, 24 and 26. Quality in this outcome area is good. This judgement has been made using available evidence including a visit to this service. The environment within the home was well maintained and clean providing a comfortable, safe environment for residents. EVIDENCE: The home was clean and tidy. Lounge and dining areas were domestically furnished to a good standard. Since the last inspection a refurbishment of the home has continued. Carpets and furniture has been replaced and large areas of the home have been redecorated. This refurbishment has markedly improved the aesthetics of Northfield and provided a more “homely” feel to the building. DS0000021798.V331434.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 18 Bedrooms checked were comfortable and homely. Residents said their beds were comfortable. Bed linen checked was clean and in a good condition. No unpleasant odours were noticeable in the home. Relatives and residents said that the home was always kept clean. Window restrictors were fitted to all windows checked. The hot water temperature in one bathroom checked measured a safe temperature below 45 degrees centigrade. This will assist in maintaining resident safety. DS0000021798.V331434.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 19 Staffing The intended outcomes for Standards 27 – 30 are: 27. 28. 29. 30. Service users’ needs are met by the numbers and skill mix of staff. Service users are in safe hands at all times. Service users are supported and protected by the home’s recruitment policy and practices. Staff are trained and competent to do their jobs. The Commission consider all the above are key standards to be inspected. JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for the following standard(s): Standards 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. Staff were employed in sufficient numbers to meet the residents needs. Recruitment procedures promoted the protection of residents. Staff have completed training that ensures these staff have the competences to meet the residents needs. Staff undertook induction training to ensure they had the skills needed to carry out their duties. EVIDENCE: The manager stated that agreed staffing levels were now being maintained but did accept that there had been shortfalls on some days due to staff sickness and absence. The majority of staff said staffing levels were adequate when there was no sickness. Relatives said that staffing levels had improved recently and staff were very visible around the home when they visited. DS0000021798.V331434.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 20 There are reduced resident numbers in the home at the moment and any rise in resident numbers must be met with an increase in staff numbers. The required 50 of care staff had not achieved their level 2/3 NVQ qualifications, although the manager said a number of staff had enrolled or were undertaking their NVQ training. The recruitment records of 3 recently employed staff members were checked. The staff had provided employment histories and the home had obtained two written references for each of them. These were satisfactory. Protection Of Vulnerable Adults (POVA) checks had been made. Enhanced Criminal Record Bureau (CRB) checks had been obtained for the staff members. There was a training and development plan for the staff. Staff said they were encouraged to attend training on various care topics and that there were good training opportunities available to them. Staff interviewed said that when they started work they received induction training in the first two months of their employment. Two staff files checked identified that the member of staff had received induction training when they commenced work. DS0000021798.V331434.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 21 Management and Administration The intended outcomes for Standards 31 – 38 are: 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. Service users live in a home which is run and managed by a person who is fit to be in charge, of good character and able to discharge his or her responsibilities fully. Service users benefit from the ethos, leadership and management approach of the home. The home is run in the best interests of service users. Service users are safeguarded by the accounting and financial procedures of the home. Service users’ financial interests are safeguarded. Staff are appropriately supervised. Service users’ rights and best interests are safeguarded by the home’s record keeping, policies and procedures. The health, safety and welfare of service users and staff are promoted and protected. The Commission considers Standards 31, 33, 35 and 38 the key standards to be inspected. JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for the following standard(s): Standards 31, 33, 35, 36 and 38. Quality in this outcome area is good. This judgement has been made using available evidence including a visit to this service. There was a positive style of management in the home. This would have a positive affect on the quality of the service the residents receive. In the main the homes policies and procedures promoted the health, safety and welfare of residents and staff. EVIDENCE: The care manager is a qualified nurse and is experienced in the care of older people and has achieved her NVQ level 4 award. DS0000021798.V331434.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 22 At the time of the inspection the CSCI area office had not received the application to register the manager. The manager has been in post for four months and is aware for the need to register. Both the managers were very positive about the inspection process and were committed to improve the service of Northfield. Residents, staff and relatives said that they met regularly with the managers of the home and spoke positively about their approachability and helpfulness. Residents said that they had recently completed questionnaires about Northfield and returned them to the manager of the home. Residents also said they had recently met with the management of the home. Minutes of this meeting were seen. Staff meetings were held and minutes of these meetings were seen. The responsible individual visited the home on a regular basis, a report was written following the visits. A copy of the responsible individuals monthly report has always been sent to the local office of the CSCI. Residents’ financial interests were safeguarded. Account sheets were kept, receipts were seen for all transactions and a second individual witnessed all transactions. (Previous requirement met) Staff said they were receiving supervision and support from the homes management. The inspector saw records to confirm that staff supervision had taken place. The health and welfare of residents could not be fully protected, as several members of staff had not received fire safety training. (Previous requirement not met) Staff said they had received recent health and safety and moving and handling training .A sample of records showed that staff were receiving this statutory training. (Previous requirement met) Practice fire drills had been conducted in the home and the records identified the length of the drill, the time the drill was held and any corrective action taken after the drill had been completed. (Previous requirement met) Fire records stated that weekly testing of the fire alarm system had occurred. A sample of records showed servicing of the homes utility systems had occurred. At the time of inspection fire exits were clear and window restraints were in situ at first floor windows checked to prevent falls. Hazardous products were safely stored in the home. This will promote the safety and welfare of the residents. DS0000021798.V331434.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 23 SCORING OF OUTCOMES This page summarises the assessment of the extent to which the National Minimum Standards for Care Homes for Older People have been met and uses the following scale. The scale ranges from: 4 Standard Exceeded 2 Standard Almost Met (Commendable) (Minor Shortfalls) 3 Standard Met 1 Standard Not Met (No Shortfalls) (Major Shortfalls) “X” in the standard met box denotes standard not assessed on this occasion “N/A” in the standard met box denotes standard not applicable CHOICE OF HOME Standard No Score 1 2 3 4 5 6 ENVIRONMENT Standard No Score 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 X X 3 3 X N/A HEALTH AND PERSONAL CARE Standard No Score 7 2 8 2 9 2 10 3 11 X DAILY LIFE AND SOCIAL ACTIVITIES Standard No Score 12 3 13 3 14 3 15 3 COMPLAINTS AND PROTECTION Standard No Score 16 3 17 X 18 3 3 X X X X 3 X 3 STAFFING Standard No Score 27 2 28 2 29 3 30 3 MANAGEMENT AND ADMINISTRATION Standard No 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 Score 2 X 3 X 3 3 X 2 DS0000021798.V331434.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 24 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 The residents daily notes must reflect the information actually recorded in the residents care plan. (Previous requirement) Each resident must have an up to date care plan. (Previous requirement) Reviews of the care plans must include the wishes and opinions of the residents or their advocates. All residents’ healthcare and personal care needs must be assessed and monitored by appropriately qualified staff. Safe procedures must be followed when administering and disposing of any medication. There must be sufficient numbers of competent and experienced staff on duty at all times. 50 of care staff must be trained to NVQ level 2 or equivalent. (Previous requirement) Timescale for action 01/07/07 2. OP7 15 01/05/07 3. OP7 12,15 01/07/07 4. OP8 14 01/05/07 5. 6. OP9 OP27 13 18 01/05/07 01/07/07 7. OP28 18 31/12/07 DS0000021798.V331434.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 25 8. OP31 8,9 9. OP38 23 The manager must forward an application to the CSCI to enable the registration of manager process to commence. Staff must receive fire instruction training at least once a year. 01/06/07 01/06/07 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 DS0000021798.V331434.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 26 Commission for Social Care Inspection Sheffield Area Office Ground Floor, Unit 3 Waterside Court Bold Street Sheffield S9 2LR 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 DS0000021798.V331434.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!