Inspection on 04/01/07 for Oakfield House

This inspection was carried out on 4th January 2007.

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

The inspector made no statutory requirements on the home as a result of this inspection and there were no outstanding actions from the previous inspection report.

Other inspections for this house

Oakfield House 11/11/05

Oakfield House 10/05/05

Oakfield House 02/11/04

Similar services:

Thornton Lodge

Chirnside House

Keer Sands Residential Home

Ruskin Lodge

Bushell House

Langrigg House

Parkside

Dystlegh Grange

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

CARE HOMES FOR OLDER PEOPLE Oakfield House 2/4 Edith Street Nelson Lancs BB9 9HU Lead Inspector Mrs Marie Dickinson Unannounced Inspection 10:00 4 & 5 January 2007 th th 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 Oakfield House DS0000052388.V323166.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. Oakfield House DS0000052388.V323166.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 3 SERVICE INFORMATION Name of service Oakfield House Address 2/4 Edith Street Nelson Lancs BB9 9HU 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) 01282-612788 Oakfield Care Ltd *** Post Vacant *** Care Home 37 Category(ies) of Dementia (1), Dementia - over 65 years of age registration, with number (18), Mental Disorder, excluding learning of places disability or dementia - over 65 years of age (4), Old age, not falling within any other category (14) Oakfield House DS0000052388.V323166.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 4 SERVICE INFORMATION Conditions of registration: 1. 2. 3. The Company must at all times, employ a suitably qualified and experienced manager, who is registered with the Commission for Social Care Inspection Within the overall registration of 37, a maximum of one named service user who falls into the category DE may be accommodated. Should the service user referred to in 2 above be no longer resident in the home, registration should revert to fifteen people over the age of Sixty five who fall into the category Older People (OP) 11th November 2005 Date of last inspection Brief Description of the Service: Oakfield House is a detached residence, situated close to several shops. Most community resources are located within Nelson town centre. There is a bus stop near the home. There are steps leading to the front of the home and a ramp pathway with handrails. The garden areas at the front of the home are also ramped to allow access for residents. There is an enclosed outdoor garden area for residents use. Accommodation provided is single and double bedrooms. accessible via stair lifts. There were aids and adaptations provided to assist people, and all rooms in the home had for the residents. There were several sitting rooms and a The upper floors are such as walk in bath a call system installed dining room. Information about the service is available from the home for potential residents in a Statement of purpose and Service User Guide. Weekly charges for personal care and accommodation range between £315 and £350. Residents are responsible for purchasing optional extras such as hairdressing, and private chiropody. Oakfield House DS0000052388.V323166.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 5 SUMMARY This is an overview of what the inspector found during the inspection. A key unannounced inspection was conducted in respect of Oakfield House on the 4th & 5th January 2007. The inspection involved getting information from staff records, care records and policies and procedures. It also involved talking to residents, staff on duty, manager, and the registered provider, and included a tour of the premises. Information about the home was received from the provider at the Commission prior to inspection. Nineteen responses were returned to the Commission from residents and visitors who gave their personal view of the services provided. Areas that needed to improve from the previous inspection were looked at for progress made. The home was assessed against the National Minimum Standards for Older People. What the service does well: Before any services are provided, resident’s needs were assessed. They were consulted about the level and type of care they required. Important information needed to support them in every day living was recorded and used to plan the care required. This helped to personalise care and show staff what they should do to achieve this. Contracts given to residents outlined the terms and conditions of residence. Staff were trained in dementia care, which meant they understood residents special needs. Residents living in the home benefited the support of a named worker referred to as a Key worker who took responsibility to make sure care needs for individuals was personalised. Healthcare needs were also monitored and staff worked with visiting medical professionals for the benefit of residents. Relatives who sent written comments for the inspection said they were made welcome to the home and could make a visit in private if they wished. One comment referred to ‘Excellent care given’. Relatives also said they were always kept informed of any changes in their relatives care needs. Social activities were managed very well. There were sufficient staff employed and activities co-ordinator employed to make sure all residents benefited. As part of assessment, consideration was given to equality and diversity of residents. A record was made of religion or cultural needs, such as identifying Oakfield House DS0000052388.V323166.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 6 if other residents/staff share the same beliefs, and what provision should be made in meeting these needs. There were no rules in the home and routine was personal to each resident. Residents said their meals were ‘good’ with choices offered. Complaints were taken seriously and residents and relatives had confidence any issue they raised would be dealt with properly. Residents said the home was a nice place to live. They were comfortable and warm. They considered staff to be polite, always there for them and gave them respect. Recruitment and selection of staff was thorough and protected residents. The level of staffing maintained, training provided and supervision was excellent which meant residents were care for by competent qualified staff. Residents and staff benefited from regular meetings and were informed of any changes planned. The management was praised for ‘continuous improvements always on the agenda.’ What has improved since the last inspection? What they could do better: To avoid any misunderstanding a copy of the contract issued to residents should be kept on their file. Staff need to recognise symptoms to administer ‘when required’ medication prescribed by doctors particularly for people with dementia. More detail as to circumstances or symptoms it would be given should be recorded. Oakfield House DS0000052388.V323166.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 7 When medication is handwritten on record sheets, to make sure the record made is accurate this must be signed by two people. For residents comfort the lounge carpet and one bedroom carpet should be professionally shampooed. The rippling in two carpets must be straightened to make walking on these is safe for residents, and a carpet grid fitted where needed. The furniture provided for residents should not be labelled for residents to identify where articles of clothing is stored unless this has been assessed as needed. To keep bedrooms sufficiently illuminated and safe for residents, the up lighter shades must be replaced with a more suitable type. It is essential for resident’s comfort, the en suite facility on the ground floor be generally upgraded, by decorating and fitting a new floor covering. Staff must be provided with adequate facilities that include a toilet especially for their use only. To make sure residents are safe at all times a risk assessment of the building must be carried out at regular intervals. 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. Oakfield House DS0000052388.V323166.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 Oakfield House DS0000052388.V323166.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): 2,3,4 Quality in this outcome area is good. This judgement has been made using available evidence including a visit to this service. Residents were given a contract informing them of the terms and conditions of living in the home. They had their needs assessed which helped staff to care for them properly. EVIDENCE: Comments sent to the Commission from residents and relatives confirmed that they were issued with contracts that outlined the cost of staying at the home and terms and conditions of residency. Copies of these however were not readily available to see. Details of admissions showed assessments were completed prior to a resident being admitted to the home. The assessment showed essential information was recorded to provide staff with sufficient information about the resident’s circumstances and level of support required to give the right care. Oakfield House DS0000052388.V323166.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 10 Records showed that the changing need of residents was responded to by seeking advice taken from other professionals such as social worker, district nurse and psychiatric healthcare workers. The range of needs of residents had been considered. Staffing levels were good and staff training programme-included specialist training to care for people with dementia. Oakfield House DS0000052388.V323166.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 11 Health and Personal Care The intended outcomes for Standards 7 – 11 are: 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. The service user’s health, personal and social care needs are set out in an individual plan of care. Service users’ health care needs are fully met. Service users, where appropriate, are responsible for their own medication, and are protected by the home’s policies and procedures for dealing with medicines. Service users feel they are treated with respect and their right to privacy is upheld. Service users are assured that at the time of their death, staff will treat them and their family with care, sensitivity and respect. The Commission considers Standards 7, 8, 9 and 10 the key standards to be inspected. JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for the following standard(s): 7,8.9,10 Quality in this outcome area is good. This judgement has been made using available evidence including a visit to this service. Care plans, which addressed the needs of each service user, were in place. Service users care was given in a manner, which promoted privacy and dignity and independence. Assistance with medication was given in accordance with the agency’s policies and procedures. EVIDENCE: Staff worked to a key working system managed by seniors, which meant they had particular responsibilities for a number of residents. Needs assessed on admission were written into a plan of care of how those needs would be met. Particular attention staff must give to residents when providing care was recorded, such as ‘requires assistance of two carers to help with washing and dressing’. Reviews of residents needs however should be kept up to date. There was evidence that residents were involved in reviews. Oakfield House DS0000052388.V323166.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 12 The residents’ healthcare needs were also detailed in the care plan. This included visits from medical professionals such as General Practitioners. To support residents with mental healthcare needs, community psychiatric nurses visited individual people and gave advice on their care. District nurses also visited. A small treatment room was provided for them to use. Responses sent to the Commission show that residents felt they received care and support at the home and received medical support they needed. Continence care was managed, however not all residents had the benefit of a full assessment to personalise their continence care. The residents spoken to felt the staff respected their right to privacy and all made complimentary remarks about the staff, for instance one resident said the staff “‘they’re very good’ and ‘helpful and happy’. Relatives who sent comments to the Commission also praised staff for the care they gave. ‘I find the stafff to be very very patient’ and ‘I’ve noticed a substantial improvement in Mums health which is very good’. Residents who had difficulty in saying what they wanted during the inspection were treated with respect, and staff had taken care in making sure their appearance was good. The home operated a monitored dosage system for the administration of medication. This was audited by the supplying pharmacist. An appropriate recording system was in place to record the receipt, administration and disposal of medication. A record of medicines received into the home had been maintained and medication had been returned to the pharmacy for disposal. How these records are managed needs to be improved. Handritten additions to the medicine record should have two signatures on and medication with instruction to be given or applied when needed should have clearer instructions recorded. Records of medication administered were up to date. Information sent to the Commission by the provider showed that eight staff were trained in medication procedures and had this responsibility. Oakfield House DS0000052388.V323166.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 13 Daily Life and Social Activities The intended outcomes for Standards 12 - 15 are: 12. 13. 14. 15. Service users find the lifestyle experienced in the home matches their expectations and preferences, and satisfies their social, cultural, religious and recreational interests and needs. Service users maintain contact with family/ friends/ representatives and the local community as they wish. Service users are helped to exercise choice and control over their lives. Service users receive a wholesome appealing balanced diet in pleasing surroundings at times convenient to them. The Commission considers all of the above key standards to be inspected. JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for the following standard(s): 12,13,14,15 Quality in this outcome area is good. This judgement has been made using available evidence including a visit to this service. The level of staffing and choice of activities made available enabled the residents have their social, cultural, religious and recreational interests and needs met. Visiting arrangements were very good which meant residents could stay in contact with their relatives and friends. Catering arrangements were to the resident’s satisfaction. EVIDENCE: The residents’ preferences in respect of social activities had been sufficiently recorded as part of their assessment. Activities for residents were organised and offered a good variety. An activities co-ordinator was employed to make sure all residents social needs were considered. Staffing levels in the home meant staff were given time to organise various pastimes, which the residents said they enjoyed. Comments from residents returned to the Commission as part of the inspection show everyone thought there was always activities arranged by the home they could join in. Comments includes ‘I join in all the activities’;’I like outdoor Oakfield House DS0000052388.V323166.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 14 activities’;’I enjoy games with the activities co-ordinator’; ‘There are activities on daily, but I only sometimes join in and enjoy sing a longs. Staff said the residents particularly enjoyed festive celebrations and birthday parties and were interested in what was generally going on in the home. During the inspection a number of residents took part in craft work, themed for the month. Set programes for activities were on a weekly planner and included for example, art and craft and board games. Residents were supported to continue with their chosen religion. As part of the assessment consideration is given to equality and diversity with a record made of religion or cultural needs; such as identifying if other residents/staff share the same beliefs; special religious days to be observed; cultural preferences such as food, bathing/personal care; Time for prayer or visiting from priest/rabbi/elder etc. Representatives from local churches do visit the home on a regular basis for prayers and communion. The residents were able to receive visitors at any time and were able to entertain their guests in private. There was evidence seen in care records that relatives regularly visited the home. Comment cards supported this, and observations of relatives visiting showed how staff were considerate to their needs and made them feel welcome. Reidents bedrooms were personalised. They were able to bring in personal belongings and arrange their rooms how they wished. The routines in the home were flexible to suit the residents, such as when they went to bed or got up. Preferred routines had been recorded. Residents could choose where to eat their meals and were observed sitting at the dining tables, sat in their chairs or had a meal in their room. Comments about the food such as ‘it’s good’ and ‘no complaints’ were made. The main meal was a set menu with two choices provided. The cook said the menus were changed regularly. If someone didnt like what was on the menu, they would be offered something else. Some residents during lunch changed their minds about what they had ordered and staff readily offered an alternative. Special needs was recorded in care plans such as ‘cut up food that may be difficult to manage’. Provisions were plentiful and the cook said she could order whatever the residents needed and wanted. Oakfield House DS0000052388.V323166.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 15 Complaints and Protection The intended outcomes for Standards 16 - 18 are: 16. 17. 18. Service users and their relatives and friends are confident that their complaints will be listened to, taken seriously and acted upon. Service users’ legal rights are protected. Service users are protected from abuse. The Commission considers Standards 16 and 18 the key standards to be. JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for the following standard(s): 16,18 Quality in this outcome area is good. This judgement has been made using available evidence including a visit to this service. The complaints procedure was clear which helped residents have confidence to raise any concern they may have. There were policies and procedures, and appropriate training for staff in adult protection issues. This meant that service users safety and welfare was promoted. EVIDENCE: A copy of the complaints procedure was displayed and was included in the information given to current and prospective residents. The procedure gave clear directions on whom to make a complaint to and the timescales for the process. The home had a recording system in place. Whilst one complaint had been received at the home, the complaint had been investigated and resolved properly. The home had an appropriate internal procedure for staff to follow should they suspect or witness an incident of abuse. Abuse procedures and whistle blowing had been covered during staff induction training, and continues to be considered a high priority with staff. Staff knew their responsibility to protect residents from abuse and considered it their duty to follow abuse procedures if Oakfield House DS0000052388.V323166.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 16 necessary. A condition of employment for staff in the home prevents them having any financial gain from residents. Oakfield House DS0000052388.V323166.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): 19,20,23,24,25,26 Quality in this outcome area is good. This judgement has been made using available evidence including a visit to this service. The residents were provided with a warm, comfortable, clean environment that suited their needs. Resident’s bedrooms were furnished and decorated to their liking. EVIDENCE: Oakfield House is a large adapted Victorian building, which is situated on a main road and close to Nelson town centre. Since the last inspection a new conservatory had been added to the lounge giving residents an additional option where to sit and was popular with the residents. The main lounge carpet although relatively new was slightly odorous. To keep this area in the home fresh smelling the carpet should be professionally cleaned. Lounge areas were comfortable. One lounge at the front of the home had been designated as a smoking lounge. Most residents used the separate dining room at meal times. Oakfield House DS0000052388.V323166.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 18 Residents said they liked the home. It was ‘warm’ and ‘comfortable’. They liked their bedrooms, which were kept ‘nice and clean’. Some decoration had been done. Most of the bedrooms in the home were reasonably decorated and furnished. The manger said there were plans to decorate some bedrooms. Attention was required to make two bedroom carpets safe due to rippling and one carpet was visibly worn and a carpet grip missing. One room on the ground floor required odour control. The manager said the rooms are shampooed every day and the dependency of the residents made it difficult to keep everywhere odour free. The use of labels on drawers should be specific to the needs of the residents who require prompts to locate articles of clothing. Residents who were able managed their own bedroom door keys and staff had the responsibility to keep other residents rooms private for them. One en suite required upgrading and the bathrooms on the ground floor required some improvement in decorating and clearing of unused items such as personal soap products and razors. There were no restricted areas and residents had access to outdoor facilities that included a safe garden area with decking and garden furniture provided. Residents said they liked to sit out during warm weather. The overall standard of hygiene and cleanliness in the home was very good. Domestic staff employed, were thorough with cleaning and the laundry was organised for efficiency in the care of resident’s clothes. Staff must be provided with adequate toilet facilities. Oakfield House DS0000052388.V323166.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): 27,28,29,30 Quality in this outcome area is excellent. This judgement has been made using available evidence including a visit to this service. Good staffing levels meant there was sufficient staff on duty to meet the needs of residents. The recruitment and selection procedures were thorough and protected service users. Staff received training and supervision, which meant they had the skills and knowledge to care for service users. EVIDENCE: Comment cards from relatives show they considered enough staff on duty in the home. Rotas showed good levels of staffing on all shifts. Staff had delegated responsibilities and an activities co-ordinator was employed to support staff meet with resident’s social needs. One to one care and social activities was part of the staff role. The residents spoke highly of the staff and written comments showed they were very happy with how staff cared for the residents in general and had no complaints. For instance one relative wrote ‘Extremely pleased with all aspects of care. ‘Everything possible is done to make my mother comfortable which in turn helps me’. Staff files showed recruitment checks to be complete and satisfactory. References and Criminal Record Bureau (CRB) and Protection of Vulnerable Oakfield House DS0000052388.V323166.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 20 Adults (POVA) register check had been applied for, prior to employment. Staff were given a contract of employment and job description to ‘Provide high standad of care that respects the individuals right to choice, dignity, fulfillment and promote independence and individuality’. All the staff in the home had attended training following their induction. Records were kept showing carers individual training profile showing the homes commitment to providing both specialist and mandatory training such as dementia care and moving and handling. Information received at the Commission show training was planned and arranged for all staff during the year. Staff confirmed they were properly supported with training. The percentage of staff having completed a national vocational qualification in care level 2 was near 100 . Comments noted on ‘Investors In People award included ‘everyone has an opportunity to develop here. You just have to ask and the support is available’. ‘The precise complete and flexible nature of the induction programme represents best practice’. Staff felt the home was run in the interest of the residents, and were committed to give residents a high standard of care. Oakfield House DS0000052388.V323166.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): 31,33,35,36,38 Quality in this outcome area is good. This judgement has been made using available evidence including a visit to this service. The home was well organised and managed efficiently. This ensured it was run in the best interests of service users. EVIDENCE: The manager who has been in post since last year has applied at the Commission to be registered. An application is currently being processed. She has relevant qualifications in care and holds the Registered Managers Award. Mr Catherine has continued to manage the home during the induction of the manager, although no formal supervision has been recorded. Senior carers support the manager. Oakfield House DS0000052388.V323166.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 22 Staff confirmed they were supervised, and had an appraisal. However this had elapsed due to management change, but was being started again. Records showed supervision included policies and their understanding and work performance. Staff and management had regular formal meetings. Topics discussed were relevant and included; working arrangements, staff recruitment, hospital visiting by the manager, initial assessment form and other important issues. Staff meet together daily and have ‘shift meetings’ to discuss residents and other issues relevant to their work for the day and night. Residents also had meetings. Records showed they were informed of changes such as the residents smoking lounge, new bedding, wheelchairs and contracts plus plans for an additional conservatory. They were introduced to the new manager. The Investors in people award had been renewed. Comments and acknowledgements received included ‘Meetings and training events are planned well in advance to ensure all staff can attend’, and ‘continuous improvement always on the agenda’. A quality assurance for the home had not been carried out for the year. This should be done, the results published and made available for all interested parties. Arrangements are in place for all new for staff to have mandatory training such as fire safety procedures, food hygiene and first aid training. Information contained in the pre – inspection questionnaire indicated that the electrical safety certificate was valid and gas installations had been approved by an engineer. Policies and procedures were available and reviewed as ‘no change’. The recommended cleaning schedule was in place for the kitchen. Safety certificates were up to date. Water temperatures at source, and in bedrooms, were satisfactory. These checks were monitored. The storage of cleaning products was also satisfactory. Management kept the Commission informed of any significant incident. The new manager was reminded to inform the Commission of any admittance to Accident and Emergency even if the resident concerned is discharged back to the home. A full risk assessment of the building must be completed. Oakfield House DS0000052388.V323166.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 2 3 3 X N/A HEALTH AND PERSONAL CARE Standard No Score 7 3 8 3 9 2 10 3 11 X DAILY LIFE AND SOCIAL ACTIVITIES Standard No Score 12 4 13 3 14 3 15 3 COMPLAINTS AND PROTECTION Standard No Score 16 3 17 X 18 3 2 3 X X 2 3 3 2 STAFFING Standard No Score 27 4 28 3 29 3 30 4 MANAGEMENT AND ADMINISTRATION Standard No 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 Score 3 X 3 X 3 3 X 2 Oakfield House DS0000052388.V323166.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 24 Are there any outstanding requirements from the last inspection? No 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 2 3 4 5 Standard OP21 OP23 OP25 OP26 OP38 Regulation 23(2)(d) 16(2) 23(2)(p) 23(3)(a) 13(4)(a) Requirement The en suite facilities on the ground floor must be upgraded. The bedroom carpet visibly worn must be replaced. Lighting in the bedrooms must be improved by replacing the up lighter shades. Staff must be provided with a designated toilet. A full risk assessment of the building must be completed. Timescale for action 30/04/07 30/04/07 28/02/07 28/02/07 28/02/07 RECOMMENDATIONS These recommendations relate to National Minimum Standards and are seen as good practice for the Registered Provider/s to consider carrying out. No. 1 2 3 Refer to Standard OP2 OP9 OP9 Good Practice Recommendations It is recommended a copy of residents contract be kept on their file. It is recommended medication prescribed to be administered when necessary, be detailed as to the circumstances it would be given. It is recommended written additions to medication sheets be signed by two staff. DS0000052388.V323166.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 25 Oakfield House 4 5 6 OP19 OP19 OP23 It is recommended the lounge carpet have regular professional cleaning to keep the home free of offensive odours. It is recommended the bathroom be cleared of personal toiletries and kept tidy. It is recommended the use of labelling on residents drawers and wardrobes be specific to individual assessed needs. Oakfield House DS0000052388.V323166.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 26 Commission for Social Care Inspection East Lancashire Area Office 1st Floor, Unit 4 Petre Road Clayton Business Park Accrington BB5 5JB 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 Oakfield House DS0000052388.V323166.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!