Inspection on 10/07/06 for Oak Bank Residential Home

This inspection was carried out on 10th July 2006.

CSCI has not published a star rating for this report, though using similar criteria we estimate that the report is (sorry - unknown). 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 no outstanding requirements from the previous inspection report, but made 21 statutory requirements (actions the home must comply with) as a result of this inspection.

Other inspections for this house

Oak Bank Residential Home 28/07/09

Oak Bank Residential Home 01/07/08

Oak Bank Residential Home 10/07/07

Oak Bank Residential Home 06/02/07

Similar services:

2 Perhaver Park

The Vicarage

St George`s

5 Seafield Road

Credence House

Radfords

Honeybourne House

32 Beaumont Way

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

CARE HOME ADULTS 18-65 Oak Bank Residential Home 31 South Road Weston Super Mare BS23 2HD Lead Inspector Paul Grey Unannounced Inspection 10th July 2006 09:30 Oak Bank Residential Home DS0000066474.V302402.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 Oak Bank Residential Home DS0000066474.V302402.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. Oak Bank Residential Home DS0000066474.V302402.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 3 SERVICE INFORMATION Name of service Oak Bank Residential Home Address 31 South Road Weston Super Mare BS23 2HD 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) 01934 647670 Oak Bank Residential Home Limited Mrs Marie Hilda Danielle Peacock Care Home 6 Category(ies) of Learning disability (6) registration, with number of places Oak Bank Residential Home DS0000066474.V302402.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 4 SERVICE INFORMATION Conditions of registration: 1. 2. May accommodate up to 6 service users who have a learning disability. On initial registration one service user may be admitted to ground floor room. Further admission will be dependant on inspection of the additional bedrooms when they are ready for use. Updated CRB`s countersigned by CSCI are received for both Marie Danielle and John Peacock before the first inspection. A home risk assessment is in place before the first inspection 3. 4. Date of last inspection First Inspection Brief Description of the Service: Oak Bank provides care for service users with learning disabilities and a range of complex needs. Oak Bank provides varying care packages with fees varying between £1000 and £2000 a week. Oak Bank Residential Home DS0000066474.V302402.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 5 SUMMARY This is an overview of what the inspector found during the inspection. This was the first inspection of Oak Bank by a regulation Inspector. At the time of inspection 20 requirements were made. The service has 3 service users. During the inspection I conducted a tour of the premises, met service users, talked with a number of staff, audited the homes care records, and reviewed the standard of service offered. A number of significant issues arose during the inspection process. These involved the management structure of the home, a lack of care planning or assessment of service users, no risk assessments, and the homes inability to demonstrate it is able to meet service users needs. During the inspection process, service users appeared relaxed and content in their surroundings. The home had a high level of staffing and program of activities for the service user group. What the service does well: What has improved since the last inspection? 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. Oak Bank Residential Home DS0000066474.V302402.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 6 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 Oak Bank Residential Home DS0000066474.V302402.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 7 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 at least once during a 12 month period. JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for the following standard(s): 1, 2, 3 Quality in this outcome area was poor. Prospective service users and their advocates are supplied with some information regarding the home. Prospective service users do not have their individual aspirations and needs appropriately assessed. The registered person can not demonstrate the homes capacity to meet the needs of individuals admitted to the home. EVIDENCE: The home has produced a statement of purpose. This gives no meaningful idea of the philosophy of the home, the type of service users the home caters for, or the homes approach towards the needs of the service users. This is a significant flaw. The home appears to be aimed at caring for service users with complex needs who require a high level of specialist care to support them. There was no meaningful assessment process, or documentation of service users needs. The daily notes of one service user started in July, although this person had been admitted to Oak bank in February The service had some rudimentary plans of care. These were not comprehensive and did not appear to reflect the needs of the service. Oak Bank Residential Home DS0000066474.V302402.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 8 Some documentation was available regarding service users hygiene, and service users bedtimes but this was insufficient to deliver any professional level of care. There was no evidence to indicate that the service could meet the needs of those it cared for. One service user’s needs relating to personal hygiene were partially addressed, but significant issues were not addressed. There was no indication of how staff should meet his needs, regarding safety, the need for a nutritious diet, support needed in his day-to-day activities, potential restrictions on his choice and human rights, or staff action in the event of acts of self harm or aggression, There was no evidence of the involvement of any family members, and nothing to indicate that the service users’ wishes had been taken into account when drawing up the plan of care. Due to the absence of assessments or care planning it was not possible to ascertain whether the home declines to offer a place to somebody whose needs it cannot meet. The Inspector could find no evidence in care plans, or risk assessments or from the provider, that care delivered by the home is based on current good practice and relevant specialist guidance. Oak Bank Residential Home DS0000066474.V302402.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 9 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 at least once during a 12 month period. JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for the following standard(s): 6, 7, 9 Quality in this outcome area is poor. Service users’ needs were not reflected in their individual plan of care. Service users are not supported to make decisions about their lives or care. Staff do not enable service users to take risks as part of an independent or supported lifestyle. EVIDENCE: Each service user had a plan of care. Due to the lack of assessment procedures and documentation, these plans were not sufficient to deliver any meaningful care. The care plans audited covered bedtimes, and personal hygiene. There was no documentary evidence relating to specialist assessments of the service users needs made by the service providers or their staff. A social worker said that specialist assessment and support was available from external agencies. There was no evidence of the involvement of the service user, family or advocates in drawing up the care plan. Oak Bank Residential Home DS0000066474.V302402.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 10 The staff team appeared to support the service users’ rights and abilities to make decisions. It was impossible to confirm whether service users rights are supported or restricted at the home due to the lack of care planning or risk assessment. There was no evidence as to how service users made individual choices, how this was recorded or how the service supported the service user to make individual choices. Due to a lack of documentation, it was not possible to ascertain what limitations on choice, or human rights were made on the service users. Observation would seem to indicate that service users’ choices and human rights were limited. For example, service users are unable to leave the premises because of the locked doors. There were no risk assessments, care plans, policies or procedures in place to justify this particular restriction. Some rudimentary risk assessments were in place, but these were unsigned, un dated and restricted to one or 2 aspects of the service users life. They were presented to the Inspector from the managers pocket: they were not in the files and not being used. Oak Bank Residential Home DS0000066474.V302402.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 11 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 at least once during a 12 month period. JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for the following standard(s): 16, Quality in this outcome area is poor. The service cannot demonstrate that service users rights are respected and recognised in their daily lives. EVIDENCE: The home appeared to offer pleasant routines promoting service users’ independence and choice. However, the absence of care planning, appropriate procedures and policies and risk assessments resulted in the home being unable to demonstrate that it supports and recognises the rights of service users in their daily lives. For example, doors on the premises are locked. There were no risk assessments indicating why this should be done, or policies for staff relating to the use of locked doors. There was no evidence of any fire or risk assessments procedures and what to do with the locked doors in the event of an emergency. Service users did not have access to areas at the front of the premises. Given the location of the building and the service users apparent needs this was not Oak Bank Residential Home DS0000066474.V302402.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 12 unreasonable. However the home has no policies or risk assessments to justify this restriction on service users rights. There was nothing in the care plans regarding service users having a key to their own rooms. Don’t think we need this. Given the degree of disability experienced by the service user group it is the Inspectors assumption that the service users mail has to be opened and read by the staff. Once again this is not documented. Oak Bank Residential Home DS0000066474.V302402.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 13 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 at least once during a 12 month period. JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for the following standard(s): 18, 19, 20 Quality in this outcome area is poor. The service is unable to provide evidence that service users receive personal support in the way they prefer. The service is unable to demonstrate that the service users physical and emotional health needs are met. Service users are protected by the homes policies and procedures for dealing with medicines. EVIDENCE: This standard was again impacted by a lack of care planning, daily notes and service user assessment. It was not possible to ascertain how staff provided care to the service user, and if this was sensitive to the service users needs. There was no evidence of any assessment of service users preferences. Oak Bank Residential Home DS0000066474.V302402.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 14 Staff said that service users had on clothes they were supported to choose, but there was no evidence to confirm this. Service users have a designated key worker but again there was nothing to indicate who this was. There was some evidence of the service users preferred routine, concerning getting up and going to bed, but this was very basic and insufficient for any meaningful standard of care. Service users had been registered with the local GP. However there was nothing documented to indicate whether service users had required any medical support or assessment during their time at the home. There was nothing in the care files to indicate whether service users hearing or vision had been checked. Service users were protected by the homes medication administration. The home had taken responsibility for this and holds and administers medication on the service users behalf. However there were no risk assessments to indicate that the service users were unable to dispense there own medication. Records were kept of medicines received, and administered. The administration of medication was noted down the drugs sheet as it was administered. There were no obvious errors or omissions on the medication sheets. Medication was administered by appropriately trained staff. Controlled drugs were stored in with the ordinary medication but no specific stock checks were used to keep a clear record of these . Oak Bank Residential Home DS0000066474.V302402.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 15 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 at least once during a 12 month period. JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for the following standard(s): 22, 23 Quality in this outcome area was poor. There was no evidence that service users views were listened to or acted on. There was no evidence that the home is able to protect service users from abuse, neglect or self harm. EVIDENCE: A brief generic complaints procedure was available in the policies and procedures folder. This did not relate well to the home, and was an off-theshelf policy with an Oak bank front cover inserted. This was not sufficient to protect service users. The manager said that any complaints would be recorded but that at the time of inspection there had been no complaints made. The home had a similar policy to protect the service user group from abuse or neglect. This was brief, generic and did not related to the home. Given the vulnerable nature of the service user group the manager should write an appropriate policy. Oak Bank Residential Home DS0000066474.V302402.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 16 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 at least once during a 12 month period. JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for the following standard(s): 24, 30 Quality in his outcome area was good. Oak bank is suitable for its service user group providing a homely, comfortable and safe environment. Oak bank is clean and hygienic throughout. EVIDENCE: Oak bank provides service users with a pleasant, well maintained environment offering exceptional space and light. Service user bedrooms and communal areas are of a good size and all were well maintained and attractive. Furniture on the premises was domestic, and of good quality. The premises were clean and hygienic throughout. There were handwashing facilities located in appropriate areas and laundry facilities were sited so that soiled articles were not carried through areas where food was prepared. The washing machines and laundry were capable of washing clothing at a minimum of 65°. Oak Bank Residential Home DS0000066474.V302402.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 17 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 at least once during a 12 month period. JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for the following standard(s): 34, 35, 36 Quality in this outcome area was poor. The registered person operates a recruitment procedure to protect the service user group, however not all staff had been appropriately screened. Service users needs are not met by appropriately trained staff. Service users do not benefit from the well supported and supervised staff team. EVIDENCE: On the premises were a range of staff files. Two files did not have appropriate recruitment documents, (POVA, CRB, two written references, 2 forms of ID), the remaining files were up-to-date. The home has no training and development plan for the staff team. Staff receive an induction on starting work in the home, but dont appear to have any formal assessment of training needs. Staff said that the current manager was available for advice, feedback and support if necessary by the staff team. Staff could see the manager in person or phone her. Reviewing the staff records, the Inspector noticed that there was little evidence of formal supervision. The manager said that this was about to start but it hadnt got off the ground yet. Oak Bank Residential Home DS0000066474.V302402.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 18 Oak Bank Residential Home DS0000066474.V302402.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 19 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 at least once during a 12 month period. JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for the following standard(s): 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43 Quality in this outcome area is poor. Service users did not benefit from a well run home. The service user group does not benefit from the ethos, leadership and management approach of the home. Service user views do not underpin self monitoring at the home. The homes policies and procedures do not safeguard service users best interests. Service users rights in the home are not safeguarded by its procedures and policies. The health, safety and welfare of service users are not promoted and protected. EVIDENCE: Oak Bank Residential Home DS0000066474.V302402.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 20 The registered manager has the qualifications and experience to run the home. Despite this, the lack of infrastructure and documentation means that the service has failed to meet its own written aims and objectives. The homes own policies and procedures were not properly implemented, (as outlined in areas of this report). The homes finances, (relating to service users budgets and finances), were not properly managed. The home had no records detailing service users financial transactions, or outlining what monies had been spent by service users. The manager of the home was open and approachable to both staff and service users. This helped create an open and inclusive atmosphere for all at the home. However there was little evidence of any sense of team direction or clear sense of leadership emerging from the home. There was no evidence of strategies, or meaningful policies to enable staff to voice concerns about the way in which the service is delivered to the service user group. This appeared to be through lack of organisation and the lack of a developed service infrastructure. At the time of inspection, the home had a generic quality assurance policy. This did not relate to the home and needs to be reviewed and updated. There was no evidence of continuous self-monitoring on the part of the service using an objective and verifiable method of quality assurance. Many of the policies in place are general policies obtained elsewhere. These have not been reviewed, were not always appropriate to the home and were out of date. The provider had used these older policies and inserted a piece of paper in front of each policy stating Oak bank with the current date. This is poor practice. The registered manager had addressed to some extent health and safety of service users and staff. Staff had received training on how to deal with violence and aggression, moving and handling and appropriate training for the administration of medication. There was no record of fire drills and no evidence that these had been performed. Oak Bank Residential Home DS0000066474.V302402.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 21 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 2 2 1 3 1 4 x 5 x INDIVIDUAL NEEDS AND CHOICES Standard No 6 7 8 9 10 Score CONCERNS AND COMPLAINTS Standard No Score 22 1 23 1 ENVIRONMENT Standard No Score 24 3 25 x 26 x 27 x 28 x 29 x 30 3 STAFFING Standard No Score 31 X 32 X 33 X 34 2 35 2 36 2 CONDUCT AND MANAGEMENT OF THE HOME Standard No 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 Score 1 1 x 1 x LIFESTYLES Standard No Score 11 x 12 x 13 x 14 x 15 x 16 1 17 x PERSONAL AND HEALTHCARE SUPPORT Standard No 18 19 20 21 Score 1 1 2 x 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Oak Bank Residential Home DS0000066474.V302402.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 22 N/A 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. 1 Standard YA1 Regulation 4 (1) A 4 (1) B 4 (1)c 12 14 14 14 17 17 15 (1) (1) (1) (1) (1) (1) (1) b a b c A A Requirement The manager must review its statement of purpose in line with the National Minimum Standards as laid out in standard 1. The manager/provider must complete and demonstrate a comprehensive assessment of the service users needs prior to admission to the home. The registered person/manager must provide appropriate care planning documentation as outlined in schedule 3. 1.(B) The registered provider/manager must develop and agree with each service user and individual plan. Any restrictions of service user rights are assessed and clearly recorded in the individual plan of care. Documentation relating to service users or the running of the home as identified in schedule 4 must not be taken off of the premises. The manager/provider must have signed and dated risk DS0000066474.V302402.R01.S.doc Timescale for action 30/11/06 2 YA2 10/07/06 3 YA3 10/07/06 4 YA6 15 (2) 15 (1) 12 (3) 12 12 14 14 14 17 17 17 (1) (3) (1) (1) (1) (1) (2) (3) b a b c A B 10/07/06 5 YA7 10/07/06 5 YA6 10/07/06 6 YA9 17 (1) a 10/07/06 Oak Bank Residential Home Version 5.2 Page 23 assessments identifying risks to service users or others. 7 YA16 17 (1) a 12 (3) The service provider/manager must be able to demonstrate how the service promotes the service users individual choice and be able to justify potential restrictions on the service users human rights. The registered manager/provider must ensure the health care needs of service users are assessed and addressed. The manager/service provider must draw up a complaints procedure that is up-to-date and appropriate to the service user group . The manager/provider must write clear policies and procedures to protect service users from abuse or neglect. The manager/provider must provide records regarding the use and storage of service users monies and valuables. The manager must replace the damaged manhole cover outside of the front steps. The loose electrical cable in the kitchen must be securely attached to the fabric of the building All staff must have POVA, CRB, 2 references and 2 forms of ID. The manager/provider must ensure that staff are adequately supervised and receive supervision as outlined in the National Minimum Standards. The registered manager/provider must run the home in accordance with its own statement of purpose and DS0000066474.V302402.R01.S.doc 10/07/06 8 YA19 17 (1) A 10/07/06 9 YA22 17 (2) 10/07/06 10 YA23 13 (4) b 13 (4) c 13 (4) c 13 (6) 17 (2) 10/07/06 11 YA23 10/07/06 12 YA24 23 (2) b 10/07/06 13 YA24 23 (2) b 10/07/06 14 15 YA34 YA36 7 9 19 18 (2) 10/07/06 10/07/06 16 YA37 10.1 12 (1) a,b 12 (2,3,4) 10/07/06 Oak Bank Residential Home Version 5.2 Page 24 policies and procedures . 17 YA39 24 (1,3) 12 (3) 17 (1) a The registered manager/provider must instigate an effective quality assurance system based on the views of service users. The homes policies and procedures must be reviewed in their entirety and comply with current legislation covering the areas set out in appendix 2 of the standards. Records required for the protection of service users and the effective running of the business must be maintained and up to date. The Inspector requires fire drills to be undertaken and documented. 30/11/06 18 YA40 30/11/06 19 YA41 17 (2) 30/11/06 20 YA42 23 (4) a,c,d 30/11/06 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 CH22 Good Practice Recommendations The manager/provider should write a complaints procedure relating specifically to the home and the course of action to be undertaking in the event of a complaint by a service user or their representative. The Inspector recommends controlled drugs are stored in a separate locked container within the medication covered. The Inspector recommends that a separate stockkeeping procedure using to staff is put in place. 2 CH20 Oak Bank Residential Home DS0000066474.V302402.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 25 Commission for Social Care Inspection Somerset Records Management Unit Ground Floor Riverside Chambers Castle Street Taunton TA1 4AL National Enquiry Line: 0845 015 0120 Email: enquiries@csci.gsi.gov.uk Web: www.csci.org.uk © This report is copyright Commission for Social Care Inspection (CSCI) and may only be used in its entirety. Extracts may not be used or reproduced without the express permission of CSCI Oak Bank Residential Home DS0000066474.V302402.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!