Inspection on 21/05/07 for Oliver House

This inspection was carried out on 21st May 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 found there to be outstanding requirements from the previous inspection report but made no statutory requirements on the home.

Other inspections for this house

Oliver House 05/11/08

Oliver House 12/05/08

Oliver House 14/06/06

Similar services:

Byars Care Home

St Marys Nursing Home

Bramble Lodge

Parkmanor Residential Home

Thornham Grove

Hunter`s Lodge

London Road Neurological and Specialist Care Unit

Carlton Care Home

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

CARE HOMES FOR OLDER PEOPLE Oliver House Oliver Road Ilkeston Derby Derbyshire DE7 4JY Lead Inspector Janet Morrow Unannounced Inspection 21st May 2007 10:00 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 Oliver House DS0000067423.V337215.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. Oliver House DS0000067423.V337215.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 3 SERVICE INFORMATION Name of service Oliver House Address Oliver Road Ilkeston Derby Derbyshire DE7 4JY 0115 9440484 0115 9440417 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) Sajid Mahmood Kim Ferguson Care Home 26 Category(ies) of Old age, not falling within any other category registration, with number (26) of places Oliver House DS0000067423.V337215.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 4 SERVICE INFORMATION Conditions of registration: 1. Oliver House is registered to provide personal and nursing care for service users of both sexes whose primary needs fall within the following categories: Old age not falling within any other category: OP up to 26 service users PD up to two, both on a named basis To admit a named service user to Oliver House in the category learning disability (PD) under variation V35355. 14th June 2006 2. Date of last inspection Brief Description of the Service: Oliver House is situated in a quiet, accessible area within the village of Kirk Hallam, close to the town of Ilkeston. The home is registered for the care of 26 elderly residents and admits residents with nursing needs. There are separate sitting and dining areas within the home. There is a garden to the rear of the building, which has been designed to be easily accessible to residents. There is passenger lift and staircase access to the first floor facilities. The home provides 24 single bedrooms (8 with en-suite facilities) and 1 double bedroom (without en-suite facility). There are sufficient additional toilet and hygiene facilities provided throughout the home. Residents are encouraged to personalise their rooms if they wish. All rooms are equipped with a link to the call system. Support services are in place with a choice of General Practitioners, and chiropody, dental, optician and other services arranged as appropriate. A visiting hairdressing service is provided. The home has open visiting arrangements. Written information provided by the home in April 2007 stated that the scale of fees was from £307.15 - £480.15 per week. Details of previous inspection reports can be found on the Commission for Social Care Inspection’s website: www.csci.org.uk Oliver House DS0000067423.V337215.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 5 SUMMARY This is an overview of what the inspector found during the inspection. This inspection visit was unannounced and took place over one day for a total of eight hours, with follow-up telephone calls for specific information. Care records and staff records were examined. A partial tour of the building was undertaken. Eleven of twenty-two residents currently accommodated were spoken with. One relative, six members of staff, the manager and the owner were spoken with. The Commission for Social Care Inspection received five residents’ surveys prior to the inspection visit. Written information provided by the home informed the inspection process. A short inspection visit took place in September 2006 following receipt of a complaint at the Commission for Social Care Inspection and this visit is referred to in the report. A further complaint regarding the same issues was received in April 2007 and the issues raised formed part of the inspection process. What the service does well: What has improved since the last inspection? There had been a little improvement since the last inspection visit in September 2006 with the provision of some new items of equipment in the home such as a new telephone system, new pressure mattresses, new curtains in bedrooms, two new beds, new bedding and a new water boiler and kettles. There ahd also been an improvement in the meals as a result of the response to the complaint received; i.e. food stocks were better and most residents reported that the quality of meals had improved. Sufficient cleaning staff were now also employed. Oliver House DS0000067423.V337215.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 6 What they could do better: Please contact the provider for advice of actions taken in response to this inspection. The report of this inspection is available from enquiries@csci.gsi.gov.uk or by contacting your local CSCI office. The summary of this inspection report can be made available in other formats on request. Oliver House DS0000067423.V337215.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 7 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 Oliver House DS0000067423.V337215.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 8 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): 3 and 4 Quality in this outcome area is good. This judgement has been made using available evidence including a visit to this service. There was sufficient admission information available to establish that the home was able to meet residents’ needs. EVIDENCE: Three residents’ records were examined and showed that assessment information was received from external professionals and the home also conducted their own assessment and background information prior to admission. This established that the home was able to meet individual needs. Those residents and relatives spoken with confirmed that their care needs were met. Oliver House DS0000067423.V337215.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 9 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 and 10. Quality in this outcome area is adequate. This judgement has been made using available evidence including a visit to this service. Care needs were generally met but omissions on care planning and medication administration inconsistencies had the potential to put residents health at risk. EVIDENCE: Three residents’ care files were examined and all had a care plan in place that contained detailed information on how to address needs. However, there were some inconsistencies in the recording of information. For example, a risk assessment for pressure sores on one file showed a high risk but there was no detail on how to address the risk; one file had a continence assessment completed that stated it should be re-assessed on a monthly basis but there had been no re-assessments between November 2006 and April 2007. Access to health professionals such as opticians and dentists was recorded in the files examined. Oliver House DS0000067423.V337215.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 10 Residents spoken with were satisfied with the care they received; one stated that the ‘staff work very hard for us’ and that they received the help they needed; another stated that staff were ‘very good to me’. There was mixed feedback about the care on the five residents’ surveys received. One responded ‘sometimes’, two responded ‘mostly’, one responded ‘no’ and one responded ‘always’ when asked if staff listened and acted on what the resident said. Two of the five surveys responded that staff were ‘always’ available when needed, one responded ‘sometimes’, and two responded ‘usually’ with one adding that ‘staffing levels could be better’. Three of the five surveys responded that they ‘always’ received the medical support needed and two responded they ‘sometimes’ received it. General observation during the inspection showed that staff and residents enjoyed warm relationships and privacy and dignity was upheld. Residents and relatives spoken with also confirmed this. A general check on all medication administration record (MAR) charts showed that most charts were signed properly but there were signatures missing on one specific date and some handwritten MAR charts were not being signed by two people, as recommended at the previous inspection visit in September 2006. Three residents’ medication administration record (MAR) charts were examined in more detail. Two corresponded with the dispensing system but one did not; i.e. there were tablets in the blister pack that had been signed for over a period of seven days and creams for external application and dressings were not being signed as administered on the MAR chart. Lactulose was being administered to several residents from one bottle. The controlled drugs register was examined and corresponded accurately with the medicines stored. An appropriate company undertook the disposal of medicines. A copy of the Royal Pharmaceutical Society Guidelines was available. The medication refrigerator temperatures were recorded on a daily basis and were within safe limits. However, the temperature of the storage room was 25 degrees at the time of the inspection visit and staff spoken with stated that it became hotter in warm weather. This must be rectified to ensure medicines are stored safely. Oliver House DS0000067423.V337215.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 11 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 and 15 Quality in this outcome area is adequate. This judgement has been made using available evidence including a visit to this service. Although meals were well-managed and personal choice facilitated, a lack of activities and entertainment had the potential to compromise residents’ quality of life. EVIDENCE: The routines of the home were flexible and residents’ interviewed stated that they had the choice of staying in their own rooms, going out or having their own hobbies. However, there was no activity co-ordinator and as a result there had been a decrease in the amount of activities and entertainment available. Lack of activity had been part of two complaints received by the Commission for Social Care Inspection in September 2006 and April 2007. Both complaints remarked that this lack of entertainment had occurred since the new owners took over and had resulted in a lower level of satisfaction with the service provided. Residents spoken with also stated that there was a lack of activities and entertainment and three of the five surveys received also stated there Oliver House DS0000067423.V337215.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 12 were ‘sometimes’ and ‘never’ any activities arranged. The complaints received were therefore upheld. However, care staff stated that they sometimes played bingo and occasionally took residents to the local shops. Visitors confirmed that they were able to call at any time and those relatives spoken with stated that they were always made to feel welcome. The serving of the lunchtime meal was observed and all residents spoken with, except one, stated that they enjoyed the food. A dessert was sampled and found to be tasty and well cooked. One resident spoken with stated the meals were ‘good’ and another that they were ‘lovely’. All residents, except one, stated that they would be able to have an alternative if they did not like the main choice on offer. Food stocks were examined and showed that a good range of foods was available. One survey received confirmed that special diets were taken account of. Two of the five surveys responded that they ‘sometimes’ liked the meals at the home, one responded they ‘usually’ did and another stated that ‘breakfasts and dinners are excellent but tea time meals could do with improvement’. The dining area was bright and cheerful but most residents chose to eat in their armchairs at an adjustable table. Sample menus were supplied as part of the written information provided by the home and showed that a choice was available and that food was nutritious. The manager was aware of how to contact advocacy services when required but stated that no residents had an advocate at present. There was no evidence available to show that residents had access to their personal information. None of the three files examined had a signature to show that care had been discussed with residents. Oliver House DS0000067423.V337215.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 13 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 and 18 Quality in this outcome area is good. This judgement has been made using available evidence including a visit to this service. Complaints were handled objectively, which ensured that residents concerns were listened to and policies and procedures and staff training protected residents from abuse. EVIDENCE: The home had a clear complaints procedure that stated complaints would be investigated within seven days. The written information supplied by the home stated that one complaint had been received at the home since the last key inspection in June 2006. The Commission for Social Care Inspection had received two complaints since the last key inspection in June 2006. Both of these were related to similar matters regarding lack of entertainment, staff shortages and slow response to building repairs. Following a short inspection visit in September 2006, the owner had fully addressed the first complaint to the complainant’s satisfaction. The second complaint has been addressed as part of this inspection visit and is referred to in the appropriate sections of this report. The key components of the complaint were upheld. Oliver House DS0000067423.V337215.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 14 Those residents spoken with were aware of the complaints procedure and who to contact if they had any concerns. All five residents’ surveys received stated that they knew how to make a complaint. An adult protection policy and procedure was in place and the home had a copy of the Derby and Derbyshire Local Authority Social Services procedures and information on the Protection of Vulnerable Adults (POVA) scheme. The home’s training record stated that adult protection training had occurred and staff interviewed confirmed this. Further adult protection training was in the process of being organised. The written information provided by the home stated that there had been one allegation of abuse in the last twelve months. This had been dealt with appropriately and the Commission for Social Care Inspection had been informed of the outcome. A further matter relating to poor moving and handling practice had been dealt with by the Local Authority Social Services Department. Oliver House DS0000067423.V337215.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 15 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 and 26 Quality in this outcome area is adequate. This judgement has been made using available evidence including a visit to this service. The home was generally well maintained, but a quicker response to repairs would further enhance residents’ accommodation. EVIDENCE: The home was clean, tidy and odour free at the time of the inspection visit. The written information supplied by the home stated that the following had occurred since the last key inspection in June 2006: four bedrooms had had new flooring and five had been decorated; the lounge and dining room had been re-decorated and new flooring had been laid in the kitchen. It also stated that a new telephone system had been installed and eight new pressure mattresses had been purchased. Oliver House DS0000067423.V337215.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 16 The external garden areas were in need of tidying and there were old pieces of equipment such as wheelchairs, mattresses and over-bed tables left at various points around the outside of the home. Staff spoken with stated that there was sometimes a wait for basic items to be replaced such as light bulbs and this was also commented on in one of the residents’ surveys received. Staff spoken with also stated that some wheelchairs were in a poor state of repair and new ones were needed. The owner stated that new ones had been purchased but other members of staff were not aware of this. One resident spoken with was in need of a bed cradle that had not been yet been provided. The laundry was neat and tidy. Washing machines had a sluice wash facility. Staff had undertaken infection control training, although a new member of staff had not done this as part of their induction and had not yet been provided with a uniform. Staff spoken with reported that there was adequate protective equipment such as gloves and aprons. Oliver House DS0000067423.V337215.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 17 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 and 30. Quality in this outcome area is adequate. This judgement has been made using available evidence including a visit to this service. Residents’ safety had the potential to be compromised by gaps in the recruitment process, staff shortages and delays in updating training in key areas. EVIDENCE: The written information supplied by the home included staff rotas for May 2007. These showed that there were four care staff available on the morning shift, three for the afternoon shift and two at night. There was one nurse available on each shift. On the day of the inspection visit, the morning shift had the staff on duty as stated on the rota but the afternoon shift had only two care staff available. Staff spoken with stated that staff shortages occurred regularly, particularly at weekends. Staff shortages were also commented on in one of the residents’ surveys received, which stated that ‘staffing levels could be better’. The written information provided by the home also stated that eleven care staff had achieved a National Vocational Qualification to Level 2, which meant that the home had achieved the target of 50 of care staff having an NVQ2. Oliver House DS0000067423.V337215.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 18 Training in mandatory health and safety areas was undertaken, although there had been a delay in arranging updated training. This was being dealt with at the time of the inspection visit. Staff spoken with stated that there had been little other training offered since the last key inspection in June 2006. Three staff files were examined and showed that some of the information as required by the Care Homes Regulations 2001 was missing. For example, one file had only one reference and one did not have gaps in employment fully explained. Evidence of applications for Criminal Record Bureau checks was available but two files had Protection of Vulnerable Adults (POVA) checks dated after the start of employment. This must be rectified so that a POVA check is in place prior to the start of employment to ensure residents are fully protected. Identity information and evidence of qualification by PIN number from the Nursing and Midwifery Council was available. Oliver House DS0000067423.V337215.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 19 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 and 38 Quality in this outcome area is adequate. This judgement has been made using available evidence including a visit to this service. Management systems in the home were inadequate, which meant the home was not always run in residents’ best interests. EVIDENCE: The manager had completed the Registered Managers award and was a first level nurse, having worked in the care of older people since 1988. She was the nurse on shift in the mornings but there was no additional time allowed for managerial duties. Oliver House DS0000067423.V337215.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 20 Quality assurance processes were not fully developed. A residents’ survey had been undertaken by the home in October 2006 and feedback seen was generally positive. However, feedback from a number of sources including complaints and residents’ surveys received by the Commission for Social Care Inspection, indicated that the service had deteriorated since the new owners took over the running of the home. Issues such as less activity and entertainment, slow response to address repairs such as replacing light bulbs and maintaining a sufficient number of wheelchairs, staff shortages and no ‘extras’ such as Easter eggs, birthday presents and no entertainment budget were cited as areas that had declined. This gave a general impression that staff, residents and their relatives were not satisfied with the current running of the home. The owners therefore need to address these concerns as a matter of priority and ensure that quality assurance processes address the views of all involved with the home. The home had not yet received any feedback from visiting professionals. This was recommended at the last key inspection in June 2006. There had also been no residents or relatives meetings to address the issues raised. The manager stated that the home did not deal with anyone’s finances but that relatives or the Local Authority administered them. This was confirmed on the written information provided by the home. There was a written record of one resident’s cigarette purchases. Health and safety issues were generally addressed. Written information supplied by the home stated that fire training had occurred in December 2006, emergency lighting had been checked in June 2006 and hoists had been checked in January 2007. Water safety was due to be checked in May 2007 and an up to date gas safety certificate was seen during the inspection visit. Mandatory staff training in key health and safety areas took place but one new member of staff had not received any training in moving and handling or infection control. There had also been a delay in arranging updated health and safety training for other staff although this was dealt with during the inspection visit. Oliver House DS0000067423.V337215.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 Older People have been met and uses the following scale. The scale ranges from: 4 Standard Exceeded 2 Standard Almost Met (Commendable) (Minor Shortfalls) 3 Standard Met 1 Standard Not Met (No Shortfalls) (Major Shortfalls) “X” in the standard met box denotes standard not assessed on this occasion “N/A” in the standard met box denotes standard not applicable CHOICE OF HOME Standard No Score 1 2 3 4 5 6 ENVIRONMENT Standard No Score 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 X X 3 3 X N/A HEALTH AND PERSONAL CARE Standard No Score 7 2 8 3 9 2 10 3 11 X DAILY LIFE AND SOCIAL ACTIVITIES Standard No Score 12 2 13 3 14 3 15 3 COMPLAINTS AND PROTECTION Standard No Score 16 3 17 X 18 3 2 X X X X X X 3 STAFFING Standard No Score 27 2 28 3 29 2 30 3 MANAGEMENT AND ADMINISTRATION Standard No 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 Score 3 X 2 X 3 X X 2 Oliver House DS0000067423.V337215.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 22 Are there any outstanding requirements from the last inspection? YES STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS This section sets out the actions, which must be taken so that the registered person/s meets the Care Standards Act 2000, Care Homes Regulations 2001 and the National Minimum Standards. The Registered Provider(s) must comply with the given timescales. No. 1. Standard OP7 Regulation 15 (1) Requirement Timescale for action 01/07/07 2. OP9 13 (2) Care plans must state how residents’ needs in respect of health and welfare are to be met, particularly where risks have been identified, to ensure all care needs are met. There must be arrangements for 01/07/07 the recording, handling, safekeeping, safe administration and disposal of medicines received into the care home to minimise risk of errors and ensure residents safety. This must include • Handwritten medication administration record (MAR) charts being signed and dated by two people. • All prescribed medicines must be administered from containers labelled with the individual’s name. • The medication administration record (MAR) charts must be signed accurately and correspond with the ‘blister’ pack. • The medicine storage room temperature should not DS0000067423.V337215.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Oliver House Page 23 3. OP12 16 (2) (n) 4. OP19 23 (2) (o) 5. 6. OP27 OP29 18 (1) (a) 19 (1) (b) (i) & Schedule 2 7. OP33 24 (1) 8. OP38 13 (5) exceed 25 degrees. Elements of this requirement are outstanding from previous inspection visits. Timescale extended for hand written medication administration record (MAR) charts to be signed by two people. Residents must be consulted about a programme of activities and facilities must be provided for recreation to improve residents’ quality of life. The external grounds must be properly maintained and rubbish removed to ensure residents safety and comfort. There must always be sufficient staff on duty to ensure residents’ needs are met. The information required by Schedule 2 of the Care Homes Regulations 2001 must be in place before staff commence employment to ensure residents are fully protected. This must include a Protection of Vulnerable Adults (POVA) check, two written references and an explanation of gaps in employment. A system for reviewing and improving the quality of care must be established to ensure residents and relatives concerns are addressed. All staff must be fully conversant with the arrangements for the safe moving and handling of residents to minimise risk of injury and ensure residents’ safety. 01/08/07 01/07/07 01/07/07 01/07/07 01/08/07 01/07/07 Oliver House DS0000067423.V337215.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 24 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 OP1 Good Practice Recommendations The residents’ guide to the home should include residents’ views of the home and make reference to the most recent inspection report. This is a previous recommendation and was not assessed on this occasion. It is recommended that a review of bathrooms usage should be completed and consideration be given to how to improve the bathrooms in order that residents are able to use them or have the choice of a shower if they wish. This is a previous recommendation and has not yet been addressed. Bedroom furniture as listed in Standard 24 should be provided. Reasons not to do so should be recorded in all files. This is a previous recommendation and has not yet been addressed. A sluicing disinfector should be provided. This is a previous recommendation and has not yet been addressed. All staff should wear protective clothing when on duty. There should be sufficient training on care issues made available to all care staff. The views of visiting professionals should be sought for quality assurance purposes. This is a previous recommendation and has not yet been addressed. The action taken in response to quality assurance questionnaires should be recorded. This is a previous recommendation and has not yet been addressed. 2. OP21 3. OP24 4. 5. 6. 7. OP26 OP26 OP30 OP33 8. OP33 Oliver House DS0000067423.V337215.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 25 Commission for Social Care Inspection Derbyshire Area Office Cardinal Square Nottingham Road Derby DE1 3QT 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 Oliver House DS0000067423.V337215.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!