Inspection on 19/02/07 for Oaklands (74)

This inspection was carried out on 19th February 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

Oaklands (74) 09/12/08

Oaklands (74) 09/11/05

Oaklands (74) 27/04/05

Oaklands (74) 17/11/04

Oaklands (74) 12/05/04

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 Oaklands (74) 74 Oaklands Chippenham Wiltshire SN15 1RQ Lead Inspector Elaine Barber Key Unannounced Inspection 19th February 2007 10:40 Oaklands (74) DS0000028216.V323184.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 Oaklands (74) DS0000028216.V323184.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. Oaklands (74) DS0000028216.V323184.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 3 SERVICE INFORMATION Name of service Oaklands (74) Address 74 Oaklands Chippenham Wiltshire SN15 1RQ 01249 765520 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) None United Response Mrs Margaret Williams Care Home 4 Category(ies) of Learning disability (4) registration, with number of places Oaklands (74) DS0000028216.V323184.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 4 SERVICE INFORMATION Conditions of registration: Date of last inspection 9th November 2005 Brief Description of the Service: 74 Oaklands is a semi-detached house in a residential area on the northern side of Chippenham. Each person who lives in the home has their own single room. Two people have rooms on the ground floor and two on the first floor. There is a lounge, dining room, kitchen, utility room and toilet on the ground floor. The bathroom is upstairs. There is a large garden at the rear of the property. 74 Oaklands is part of North Wiltshire Community Living, which is run by the national charity, United Response. 74 Oaklands is each person’s permanent home for as long as this remains appropriate to their needs and wishes. The people receive personal care and support throughout the day from a permanent staff team. There is a member of staff on duty when people are in the home. There are two members of staff on duty during evenings and weekends to enable people to participate in activities. The philosophy of care emphasises the importance of an ordinary home environment and the involvement of people with a learning disability within the wider community. The registered manager is Mrs M. Williams. The fees range between £929.28 and £960.42. Oaklands (74) DS0000028216.V323184.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 5 SUMMARY This is an overview of what the inspector found during the inspection. This inspection included an unannounced visit to the home on 19th February 2007. During the visit information was gathered using: • • • • Observation Discussion with three people who lived in the home Discussion with three staff Reading records including care records. Other information and feedback about the home has been received and taken into account as part of this inspection: • • • The manager provided information prior to the inspection about the running of the home. Four comment cards were received from people who lived in the home. Two comment cards were received from staff members. What the service does well: People’s individual needs were assessed so that their needs could be met. Each person who lived in the home had their needs assessed by staff at 74, Oaklands They also had re-assessments by social workers and assessments by an occupational therapist, physiotherapist and a psychologist. Each person had a daily routine and detailed support plans had been developed for different needs and these were reviewed every six months. New objectives were set and support plans were amended following the reviews. Objectives were monitored every two months. People had their abilities, needs and goals reflected in their individual plans. People were satisfied with their involvement in decision making in the home including choosing their food, the décor of their rooms and where to go on holiday. One person had been involved in training and staff selection. There was a keyworker system and people were supported and encouraged to make decisions. Risks were assessed and the benefits of participating in activities were considered. People were supported to take risks and given opportunities for independence. People were provided with a range of activities and opportunities to go out into their local community. They attended a day service, college and work experience. They also went to church, the shops, library, pub and leisure centre. Activities were suited to their individual needs and preferences. Oaklands (74) DS0000028216.V323184.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 6 People were able to maintain and develop appropriate relationships with family and friends. One person had visited their mother the day before the inspection. People kept in contact with people living in other houses which were part of the organisation. People were involved in the routines of the home including, washing, shopping and cleaning. They made choices and decisions. People’s daily lives had an appropriate balance between necessary routines, and individual choice. Their rights were respected and their responsibilities were recognised in their daily lives. People were involved in shopping for food and meal preparation. They chose the meals they ate. People were offered healthy, nutritious and enjoyable meals. There was information about people’s individual needs and preferences in their assessments and care plans. People’s routines were recorded in their personal notes so that people received support in ways they preferred and required. People’s healthcare needs were included in their personal plans. Each person was registered with a GP and they saw a range of health professionals including a community nurse, occupational therapist, psychiatrist, dentist, optician and podiatrist. People’s physical and emotional health needs were met. Staff supported people to take their medication. One person was supported to retain and administer their own medication. There were appropriate arrangements for the storage and administration of medication and people were protected by the home’s policies and practices. There was a complaints procedure and the people who lived in the home knew how to make a complaint. People’s views were listened to and acted upon. There were policies and procedures about protection from abuse and staff had received relevant training. People were protected from abuse, neglect and self harm. There was a lounge and separate dining room and a garden. People lived in a comfortable, clean and safe environment, suitable to their needs. The shared spaces complemented people’s rooms. Each person had a single room, which was individually decorated and furnished. People’s bedrooms suited their needs and lifestyles. There were sufficient toilet and bathroom facilities to ensure privacy and meet people’s needs. People were involved in the routines of the home and did their own cleaning with support. There was a separate laundry room. The home was clean and hygienic. Oaklands (74) DS0000028216.V323184.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 7 There were seven support workers and the manager. There was a range of training to ensure that staff could meet people’s diverse needs. Several members of staff had worked with the people who lived in the home since they were children. Three of the staff had a National Vocational Qualification (NVQ). People were supported by an effective staff team, who were appropriately trained and competent to meet their needs. There had been no new staff since the last main inspection when it was noted that all the appropriate recruitment checks were completed before staff started work. People were protected by the home’s recruitment practices. The registered manager was suitably qualified, competent and experienced, so that people benefited from a well run home. A quality assurance survey had been conducted and views of people who lived in the home and relevant professionals had been collected. A report had been produced and areas for improvement had been identified. People’s views underpinned all selfmonitoring, review and development by the home. There was a range of health and safety measures and staff had received appropriate training. People’s health and safety were protected by the health and safety systems in place. What has improved since the last inspection? What they could do better: No requirements or recommendations have been made as a result of this inspection. The manager and staff had identified several areas for improvement as a result of their quality assurance survey. These include having a continually developing quality assurance system, having more team members trained to NVQ level 2, finding more ways of involving family and friends in quality monitoring, working harder to facilitate communication between people they support and external professionals, even better standards Oaklands (74) DS0000028216.V323184.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 8 of internal décor and adapting the house so that it is more suitable for the changing physical needs of one of the people supported. 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. Oaklands (74) DS0000028216.V323184.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 9 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 Oaklands (74) DS0000028216.V323184.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 10 Choice of Home The intended outcomes for Standards 1 – 5 are: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Prospective service users have the information they need to make an informed choice about where to live. Prospective users’ individual aspirations and needs are assessed. Prospective service users know that the home that they will choose will meet their needs and aspirations. Prospective service users have an opportunity to visit and to “test drive” the home. Each service user has an individual written contract or statement of terms and conditions with the home. The Commission consider Standard 2 the key standard to be inspected. JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for the following standard(s): 2, Quality in this outcome area is good. This judgement has been made using available evidence including a visit to this service. People’s individual needs and aspirations were fully assessed. EVIDENCE: No new people had moved into the home since the last inspection. All the people had moved into the home before the introduction of care management in 1993 so they did not have initial community care assessments. There was in-house assessment information and some people had had reassessments by social workers. There were also assessments by an occupational therapist, physiotherapist and a psychologist. There were copies of social work care plans. Each person had a daily routine, a support plan and each person had revised support plan objectives following a review. Oaklands (74) DS0000028216.V323184.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 11 Individual Needs and Choices The intended outcomes for Standards 6 – 10 are: 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. Service users know their assessed and changing needs and personal goals are reflected in their individual Plan. Service users make decisions about their lives with assistance as needed. Service users are consulted on, and participate in, all aspects of life in the home. Service users are supported to take risks as part of an independent lifestyle. Service users know that information about them is handled appropriately, and that their confidences are kept. The Commission considers Standards 6, 7 and 9 the key standards to be inspected. JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for the following standard(s): 6, 7, 9 Quality in this outcome area is good. This judgement has been made using available evidence including a visit to this service. People’s assessed needs were reflected in their support plans which were reviewed and changed as necessary. People were supported to make decisions about their lives and to take risks to promote their independence. EVIDENCE: The files of three people were read. Each person had a weekly routine and plan of activities. Objectives for each person were identified during six monthly reviews. Each person had a summary of their objectives following their review and a plan of how these objectives would be met. The objectives were monitored every two months. Plans were developed at six monthly reviews involving the person, professionals and relatives. When required there were also behaviour plans developed by the behaviour nurse. Oaklands (74) DS0000028216.V323184.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 12 People were satisfied with their involvement in decision making in the home including choosing their food, the décor of their rooms and where to go on holiday. One person had been involved in training and staff selection. There was a keyworker system and people were supported and encouraged to make decisions. Throughout the inspection staff were observed assisting people to make choices and decisions, for example what to make for lunch. Risks were identified in social work assessments. People had individual risk assessments in their personal files, for example for bathing, going to college alone, staying home alone and swimming. The risk assessments included the benefits to the person of participating in activities, which may pose a risk. They focused on promoting independence and were regularly reviewed. Oaklands (74) DS0000028216.V323184.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 13 Lifestyle The intended outcomes for Standards 11 - 17 are: 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. Service users have opportunities for personal development. Service users are able to take part in age, peer and culturally appropriate activities. Service users are part of the local community. Service users engage in appropriate leisure activities. Service users have appropriate personal, family and sexual relationships. Service users’ rights are respected and responsibilities recognised in their daily lives. Service users are offered a healthy diet and enjoy their meals and mealtimes. The Commission considers Standards 12, 13, 15, 16 and 17 the key standards to be inspected. JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for the following standard(s): 12, 13, 15, 16, 17 Quality in this outcome area is good. This judgement has been made using available evidence including a visit to this service. People were provided with a range of activities and opportunities to go out into their local community. Activities were suited to their individual needs and preferences. People were able to maintain and develop appropriate relationships with family and friends. People’s rights were respected and their responsibilities were recognised in their daily lives. People were offered healthy, nutritious and enjoyable meals, in line with individual needs and choices. Oaklands (74) DS0000028216.V323184.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 14 EVIDENCE: The notes of three people were read. Each person’s weekly routine showed their regular day time activities. They all went to a resource centre for some sessions each week. Two people also attended college. One was doing a performing arts course and the other was doing pottery and wood work. One person worked at a garden centre. The records showed that they had a range of leisure activities including yoga, swimming, shopping, and horse riding. They used a range of community facilities including the shops, pub, garden centres, the banks, and church. At home people watched TV and video and listened to music. People also attended social clubs in the evening. One person participated in an advocacy group. People talked about their daytime and leisure activities which they enjoyed. One person said that they were planning a trip to London to the theatre and another was planning a holiday in London in April. A third person said that they had a holiday in Butlins. People who lived in the home talked about their contact with family and friends. One person said that it was their birthday the previous day and they had seen their mother. Another person said that they regularly saw a friend who lived in one of the other United Response houses. The review notes and monitoring records showed how people were supported to keep in contact with their family and friends. Each person’s personal file contained notes about their choice of personal routine and how they wished to be supported. People chose how to spend their time. They could chose to spend time in their own rooms to be together in the sitting room. People were involved in the routines of the home including cleaning their own rooms, doing their laundry, preparing their own meals, laying the table and clearing away. Privacy was respected and staff knocked on people’s doors and only entered if invited. Staff talked to and interacted with the people and not just to each other. People had unrestricted access to the shared areas of the home and to the garden. People had opportunities for independence and one person was able to go to activities on their own and stay in the house on their own. Staff supported people to manage their own money. The records of food served showed that there was a varied menu and that people chose what they wanted to eat. Frequently people had different meals. During the inspection staff supported people to make their lunch and each chose what they wanted to eat. One had sandwiches and another had beans on toast. Three people chose what to have for their evening meal and they decided upon macaroni cheese with bacon and mushrooms. One person said Oaklands (74) DS0000028216.V323184.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 15 that they went shopping for food and chose what to buy. People said that they enjoyed their meals. Oaklands (74) DS0000028216.V323184.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 16 Personal and Healthcare Support The intended outcomes for Standards 18 - 21 are: 18. 19. 20. 21. Service users receive personal support in the way they prefer and require. Service users’ physical and emotional health needs are met. Service users retain, administer and control their own medication where appropriate, and are protected by the home’s policies and procedures for dealing with medicines. The ageing, illness and death of a service user are handled with respect and as the individual would wish. The Commission considers Standards 18, 19, and 20 the key standards to be inspected. JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for the following standard(s): 18, 19, 20 Quality in this outcome area is good. This judgement has been made using available evidence including a visit to this service. People received personal support in the way that they preferred and required. People’s physical and emotional health needs were met. One person was supported to retain and administer their own medication. People were protected by the home’s policies and procedures for dealing with medicines. EVIDENCE: People’s preferences for how they were supported were reflected in their individual routines and specific support plans. Any assistance with personal care was identified in the support plans and personal support took place in the privacy of people’s own rooms or the bathroom. People’s preferred times for getting up and going to bed were identified in the daily routines while meal times were fitted in with activities and were flexible. People chose their own Oaklands (74) DS0000028216.V323184.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 17 clothes and hairstyles. People had access to advocacy and had support from their family and professionals. The people who lived in the home were registered with GPs at a local surgery. Specialist support was being provided through the Community Team for People with Learning Disabilities including community nursing, occupational therapy, psychology and psychiatry. People’s individual needs in respect of medical conditions and disabilities were assessed and recorded. Each person had an annual check up. Visits to opticians, dentists, podiatrists and other health care professionals were recorded. People had recently had appointments with the dentist. There was a policy about medication. Prescribed medication was obtained from a local chemist in a monitored dosage system and there were suitable storage facilities. People received support from staff with the safekeeping and administration of medication. One person was supported to manage their own diabetes medication and the diabetes nurse had provided advice. All other medication was administered by staff members after they had received training and been assessed as competent. Medication administration record sheets, provided with the monitored dosage system, were being used to record medication received, administered, returned and destroyed. A list of current medication for each person was kept in their file. The pharmacist visited to inspect the medication arrangements. There was a homely remedies policy. Each person had a list of homely remedies, such as paracetamol and cough mixture, which they could take in agreement with the GP. Oaklands (74) DS0000028216.V323184.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 18 Concerns, Complaints and Protection The intended outcomes for Standards 22 – 23 are: 22. 23. Service users feel their views are listened to and acted on. Service users are protected from abuse, neglect and self-harm. The Commission considers Standards 22, and 23 the key standards to be inspected. JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for the following standard(s): 22, 23 Quality in this outcome area is good. This judgement has been made using available evidence including a visit to this service. People’s views were listened to and acted upon. People were protected from abuse, neglect and self harm. EVIDENCE: No complaints about the home had been received during the last year. There was a detailed complaints procedure. A pictorial and ‘user friendly’ version was available for people and each person had a copy. When asked, two people said that they knew how to make a complaint and would talk to a member of staff. United Response had produced a range of relevant policies and written guidance for staff members. These included procedures covering the prevention of harm, responding to allegations of abuse, responding to challenging behaviour, dealing with service users’ money and challenging bad practice at work (whistle blowing). Copies of the guidance booklet, ‘No Secrets’ were available to staff. The training records showed that three staff had received training in the prevention from harm. The two staff who completed comment cards were aware of the adult protection procedures. A referral had been made to the vulnerable adults unit when one person had some money stolen the previous year. There had been no recent allegations. Oaklands (74) DS0000028216.V323184.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 19 People were supported to manage their own money and had their own cash boxes. There were cash records for people’s money detailing income and outgoings, reasons for purchases and receipts. A staff member supported one person to go to the bank to draw out some money on the morning of the inspection. The staff member completed records on their return. Oaklands (74) DS0000028216.V323184.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 20 Environment The intended outcomes for Standards 24 – 30 are: 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. Service users live in a homely, comfortable and safe environment. Service users’ bedrooms suit their needs and lifestyles. Service users’ bedrooms promote their independence. Service users’ toilets and bathrooms provide sufficient privacy and meet their individual needs. Shared spaces complement and supplement service users’ individual rooms. Service users have the specialist equipment they require to maximise their independence. The home is clean and hygienic. The Commission considers Standards 24, and 30 the key standards to be inspected. JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for the following standard(s): 24, 25, 27, 28, 30 Quality in this outcome area is good. This judgement has been made using available evidence including a visit to this service. People lived in a comfortable, clean and safe environment, suitable to their needs. The shared spaces complemented people’s rooms. People’s bedrooms suited their needs and lifestyles. There were sufficient toilet and bathroom facilities to ensure privacy and meet people’s needs. The home was clean and hygienic. EVIDENCE: The location and outlook of the home was in keeping with the stated aims and objectives. The property was similar to other houses in the surrounding area. The upkeep of the home and on-going maintenance was of a good standard. Oaklands (74) DS0000028216.V323184.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 21 Systems were in place for the monitoring of health and safety. The accommodation was decorated in a homely and domestic manner. The last food hygiene inspection by an environmental health officer was carried out in April 2004. They stated that there were good standards of food hygiene and recommended that the kitchen cupboards were replaced. New kitchen cupboards and worktops had been fitted and the kitchen had been retiled. There was a lounge and a dining room for shared use. A new carpet was due to be fitted in the lounge the day after the inspection. One person said that everybody who lived in the home had been involved in choosing the colour. There was a door from the dining room to the garden. One of the people who lived in the home liked to work in the garden. Each person had their own room, which was individually decorated and furnished. Sleeping-in facilities for staff were provided in a separate room. The bathroom was on the first floor. There was one toilet on the ground floor and another one in the bathroom. In their recent quality assurance report the manager and staff had identified that the house may need adapting so that it is more suitable for the changing physical needs of one of the people who is supported. The home was clean throughout and there were no unpleasant odours. The people who lived in the home were involved in the cleaning. During the inspection they vacuumed and dusted the lounge. In their comment cards people said that the home was always fresh and clean. Laundry was washed in a small utility room. This was separate to the kitchen and the communal rooms. Soiled items were not carried through areas where food was stored, cooked or eaten. Guidance on infection control was available to the staff. There were written work schedules for various domestic and health & safety tasks. Oaklands (74) DS0000028216.V323184.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 22 Staffing The intended outcomes for Standards 31 – 36 are: 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. Service users benefit from clarity of staff roles and responsibilities. Service users are supported by competent and qualified staff. Service users are supported by an effective staff team. Service users are supported and protected by the home’s recruitment policy and practices. Service users’ individual and joint needs are met by appropriately trained staff. Service users benefit from well supported and supervised staff. The Commission considers Standards 32, 34 and 35 the key standards to be inspected. JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for the following standard(s): 32, 24, 35 Quality in this outcome area is good. This judgement has been made using available evidence including a visit to this service. People were supported by an effective team of competent and qualified staff. People were supported and protected by the home’s recruitment policies and practices. People’s individual and joint needs were met by appropriately trained staff. EVIDENCE: Relationships between the people who lived in the home and staff members during the inspection appeared to be friendly and positive. United Response had produced a ‘Getting it Right’ manual that provided staff members with comprehensive guidance on good practice in their support for people. Staff had received a wide range of relevant training to enable them to develop the skills to meet people’s needs. Several of the staff had worked with the people, who lived in the home, for many years and were familiar with their needs. There were seven members of staff. Two members of staff had completed a National Vocational Qualification (NVQ) at level 2 and one had completed NVQ Level 3. Oaklands (74) DS0000028216.V323184.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 23 Two staff were working towards NVQ Level 2. There were no trainees or volunteers working in the home. There was a staff rota for the month ahead. This took account of people’s’ activities and any special events that were coming up. The manager’s hours were not included on the staff rota. The rota showed that at least one member of staff was on duty and often two. A member of staff explained that there were usually two members of staff on duty to support people with their activities. However, there would be one member of staff on duty when no-one was home or if only one person was at home. One member of staff slept in at night. There was an on-call system for making contact with a United Response manager outside office hours. There were regular staff meetings, usually monthly. These covered a range of business items and discussions about people’s needs. Specialist services were provided by the community team. Several of the staff had worked in the home for many years and knew the people from when they were children. There had been no new members of staff recruited since the last inspection. There was a recruitment procedure and at previous inspections this was followed. New staff had all the appropriate checks before taking up employment, including a Criminal Records Bureau check and Protection of Vulnerable Adults List check, two written references and a declaration that they had no offences. There was an annual training plan for the Western Area of United Response. The records showed that all staff had training in food hygiene, first aid, health and safety, manual handling, medication and challenging behaviour and physical intervention. There was also training about epilepsy awareness, autism, makaton, equality and diversity, prevention from harm, sexuality and relationships and the way we work, a course about the ethos of the organisation. Training needs were identified in supervision and appraisal. Several staff had been in post many years and had received a wide range of training. The training records showed that they kept their training up to date. Oaklands (74) DS0000028216.V323184.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 24 Conduct and Management of the Home The intended outcomes for Standards 37 – 43 are: 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. Service users benefit from a well run home. Service users benefit from the ethos, leadership and management approach of the home. Service users are confident their views underpin all self-monitoring, review and development by the home. Service users’ rights and best interests are safeguarded by the home’s policies and procedures. Service users’ rights and best interests are safeguarded by the home’s record keeping policies and procedures. The health, safety and welfare of service users are promoted and protected. Service users benefit from competent and accountable management of the service. The Commission considers Standards 37, 39, and 42 the key standards to be inspected. JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for the following standard(s): 37, 39, 42 Quality in this outcome area is good. This judgement has been made using available evidence including a visit to this service. People were benefiting from a well run home. People’s views underpinned all self-monitoring, review and development by the home. People’s health, safety and welfare were promoted and protected. Oaklands (74) DS0000028216.V323184.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 25 EVIDENCE: The manager has responsibility for a number of homes that are run by United Response in the North Wiltshire area. The manager has a Registered Nursing qualification, a diploma in management studies and a qualification in the care of people with a learning disability. She keeps her training up to date. There was a ‘Getting it Right’ manual which was a quality assurance manual with policies and procedures to ensure that a range of standards were met. The area manager conducted the monthly visits under Regulation 26 of the Care Homes Regulations. There was a two year corporate plan for United Response. There were annual reviews and monitoring of objectives to demonstrate year on year development for each person who lived in the home. Since the last inspection a questionnaire had been sent to a range of stakeholders, including the people who lived in the home, to obtain their views of the service. A report had been developed of the findings, areas for development had been identified and an action plan had been developed to ensure these developments happened. A number of risk assessments and safe working procedures had been recorded. These included a fire risk assessment and individual risk assessments about the safety of radiators and unrestricted windows. A risk management manual had been produced by United Response. Arrangements were in place for the training of staff in moving and handling, fire safety, first aid, food hygiene and infection control. A monthly safety inspection of the home was carried out by staff. Hot water temperature regulators had been fitted to all hot water taps except the kitchen. These were serviced in May 2006. There was a health and safety policy and a health and safety handbook was available to the staff team. This detailed the action to be taken in order to comply with the relevant regulations. There were COSHH assessments and a range of safety checks. These included portable appliance testing, servicing of the boiler, taking of hot water temperatures, vehicle checks, cleaning of the shower head and fire safety checks. One person who lived in the home described how they were involved in fire drills and knew what to do in the event of a fire. Oaklands (74) DS0000028216.V323184.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 26 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 X 2 3 3 X 4 X 5 x INDIVIDUAL NEEDS AND CHOICES Standard No 6 7 8 9 10 Score CONCERNS AND COMPLAINTS Standard No Score 22 3 23 3 ENVIRONMENT Standard No Score 24 3 25 3 26 x 27 3 28 3 29 X 30 3 STAFFING Standard No Score 31 X 32 3 33 X 34 3 35 3 36 x CONDUCT AND MANAGEMENT OF THE HOME Standard No 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 Score 3 3 X 3 X LIFESTYLES Standard No Score 11 X 12 3 13 3 14 X 15 3 16 3 17 3 PERSONAL AND HEALTHCARE SUPPORT Standard No 18 19 20 21 Score 3 3 3 X 3 X 3 X X 3 X Oaklands (74) DS0000028216.V323184.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 27 No Are there any outstanding requirements from the last inspection? STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS This section sets out the actions, which must be taken so that the registered person/s meets the Care Standards Act 2000, Care Homes Regulations 2001 and the National Minimum Standards. The Registered Provider(s) must comply with the given timescales. No. Standard Regulation Requirement Timescale for action RECOMMENDATIONS These recommendations relate to National Minimum Standards and are seen as good practice for the Registered Provider/s to consider carrying out. No. Refer to Standard Good Practice Recommendations Oaklands (74) DS0000028216.V323184.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 28 Commission for Social Care Inspection Chippenham Area Office Avonbridge House Bath Road Chippenham SN15 2BB 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 Oaklands (74) DS0000028216.V323184.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 29 - 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!