Inspection on 17/01/06 for Pages Orchard, 4

This inspection was carried out on 17th January 2006.

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 no outstanding requirements from the previous inspection report, but made 2 statutory requirements (actions the home must comply with) as a result of this inspection.

Other inspections for this house

Pages Orchard, 4 08/01/07

Pages Orchard, 4 19/09/05

Pages Orchard, 4 12/10/04

Pages Orchard, 4 05/08/04

Pages Orchard, 4 23/02/04

Similar services:

Hillview Farm

Dalewood Respite Care

Orchard,The

REACH Upton Court Road

Fairways

Treloar College

Kestrel House, St Anne`s Opportunity Centre,

Pinta

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

CARE HOME ADULTS 18-65 4 Pages Orchard Sonning Common Reading Berkshire RG4 9LW Lead Inspector Catherine Kane Announced Inspection 17th January 2006 10:00 4 Pages Orchard DS0000013221.V267082.R01.S.doc Version 5.1 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 4 Pages Orchard DS0000013221.V267082.R01.S.doc Version 5.1 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. 4 Pages Orchard DS0000013221.V267082.R01.S.doc Version 5.1 Page 3 SERVICE INFORMATION Name of service 4 Pages Orchard Address Sonning Common Reading Berkshire RG4 9LW 01734 722928 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) Dysons Wood Trust Lise Thorngate Care Home 3 Category(ies) of Learning disability (3), Physical disability (3) registration, with number of places 4 Pages Orchard DS0000013221.V267082.R01.S.doc Version 5.1 Page 4 SERVICE INFORMATION Conditions of registration: 1. The total number of persons that may be accommodated at any one time must not exceed 3 19th September 2005 Date of last inspection Brief Description of the Service: 4 Pages Orchard is a care home registered for three adults with learning difficulties, and is situated in a residential area of Sonning Common, South Oxfordshire. The home is managed by The Disabilities Trust, an organisation with experience in supporting service users with autistic spectrum disorders. The manager and staff support the three individuals to access the local and wider community and to maintain and develop independence skills. 4 Pages Orchard DS0000013221.V267082.R01.S.doc Version 5.1 Page 5 SUMMARY This is an overview of what the inspector found during the inspection. This announced inspection visit took place during the day of Tuesday 17 January 2006. The manager and staff knew the inspector was planning to visit and had prepared well. The purpose of the visit was to see how the home is meeting National Minimum Standards. The visit took almost three hours. The inspector met all three residents, the manager and two staff who were on duty at the time. During the inspection she had a look round the home, read notes and looked at other records kept in the home. The inspector received comment cards from the relatives of two residents. She also met the relatives of one resident at the time of the inspection. The feedback from all relatives was very positive and complimentary about the care provided by the manager and her staff team. A comment card was also received from the residents’ GP. This confirmed that they were satisfied with the overall care provided within this home. The inspector would like to thank each resident for making her feel very welcome and inviting her to stay for lunch. She also thanks the manager and staff on duty for their assistance during the inspection. The inspector is very grateful to the residents’ relatives who provided her with helpful information about the care provided in this home. What the service does well: What has improved since the last inspection? Two new permanent staff have been recruited to the staff team. The manager took speedy action to address requirements and recommendations made at this and previous inspections. 4 Pages Orchard DS0000013221.V267082.R01.S.doc Version 5.1 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. 4 Pages Orchard DS0000013221.V267082.R01.S.doc Version 5.1 Page 7 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 4 Pages Orchard DS0000013221.V267082.R01.S.doc Version 5.1 Page 8 Choice of Home The intended outcomes for Standards 1 – 5 are: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Prospective service users have the information they need to make an informed choice about where to live. Prospective users’ individual aspirations and needs are assessed. Prospective service users know that the home that they will choose will meet their needs and aspirations. Prospective service users have an opportunity to visit and to “test drive” the home. Each service user has an individual written contract or statement of terms and conditions with the home. The Commission consider Standard 2 the key standard to be inspected at least once during a 12 month period. JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for the following standard(s): Standard 2 was assessed at the inspection held on 19 September 2005. EVIDENCE: 4 Pages Orchard DS0000013221.V267082.R01.S.doc Version 5.1 Page 9 Individual Needs and Choices The intended outcomes for Standards 6 – 10 are: 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. Service users know their assessed and changing needs and personal goals are reflected in their individual Plan. Service users make decisions about their lives with assistance as needed. Service users are consulted on, and participate in, all aspects of life in the home. Service users are supported to take risks as part of an independent lifestyle. Service users know that information about them is handled appropriately, and that their confidences are kept. The Commission considers Standards 6, 7 and 9 the key standards to be inspected at least once during a 12 month period. JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for the following standard(s): Standards 6, 7 and 9 were assessed at the inspection held on 19 September 2005. EVIDENCE: 4 Pages Orchard DS0000013221.V267082.R01.S.doc Version 5.1 Page 10 Lifestyle The intended outcomes for Standards 11 - 17 are: 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. Service users have opportunities for personal development. Service users are able to take part in age, peer and culturally appropriate activities. Service users are part of the local community. Service users engage in appropriate leisure activities. Service users have appropriate personal, family and sexual relationships. Service users’ rights are respected and responsibilities recognised in their daily lives. Service users are offered a healthy diet and enjoy their meals and mealtimes. The Commission considers Standards 12, 13, 15, 16 and 17 the key standards to be inspected at least once during a 12 month period. JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for the following standard(s): Standards 12,13, 15, 16 and 17 were assessed at the inspection held on 19 September 2005. EVIDENCE: 4 Pages Orchard DS0000013221.V267082.R01.S.doc Version 5.1 Page 11 Personal and Healthcare Support The intended outcomes for Standards 18 - 21 are: 18. 19. 20. 21. Service users receive personal support in the way they prefer and require. Service users’ physical and emotional health needs are met. Service users retain, administer and control their own medication where appropriate, and are protected by the home’s policies and procedures for dealing with medicines. The ageing, illness and death of a service user are handled with respect and as the individual would wish. The Commission considers Standards 18, 19, and 20 the key standards to be inspected at least once during a 12 month period. JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for the following standard(s): Standards 18,19 and 20 were assessed at the inspection held on 19 September 2005 EVIDENCE: 4 Pages Orchard DS0000013221.V267082.R01.S.doc Version 5.1 Page 12 Concerns, Complaints and Protection The intended outcomes for Standards 22 – 23 are: 22. 23. Service users feel their views are listened to and acted on. Service users are protected from abuse, neglect and self-harm. The Commission considers Standards 22, and 23 the key standards to be inspected at least once during a 12 month period. JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for the following standard(s): 23 The policies and procedures that protect vulnerable people are robust. EVIDENCE: This home operates in accordance with the Oxfordshire Multi-Agency Code of Practice to protect vulnerable adults from abuse. Staff have confirmed a good understanding of their ‘duty of care’ to protect vulnerable people and some staff have attended specific local training. 4 Pages Orchard DS0000013221.V267082.R01.S.doc Version 5.1 Page 13 Environment The intended outcomes for Standards 24 – 30 are: 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. Service users live in a homely, comfortable and safe environment. Service users’ bedrooms suit their needs and lifestyles. Service users’ bedrooms promote their independence. Service users’ toilets and bathrooms provide sufficient privacy and meet their individual needs. Shared spaces complement and supplement service users’ individual rooms. Service users have the specialist equipment they require to maximise their independence. The home is clean and hygienic. The Commission considers Standards 24, and 30 the key standards to be inspected at least once during a 12 month period. JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for the following standard(s): 24, 26, 28 and 30 The standard of accommodation within this home is good providing a comfortable, family home atmosphere. The home was bright, clean and tidy at the time of the inspection. EVIDENCE: The manager telephoned the inspector to say that the home’s handy person took speedy action to ensure that some minor repairs to a fray in the fitted carpets was fixed. She also confirmed that some minor repairs to the plasterwork in the downstairs hallway are to be done. Residents are fully involved in helping staff prepare drinks, meals and snacks in the small kitchen. The home’s routine plan of renewal has already identified that new tiling and a new cooker are required. There were cracks in the tiled area around electric sockets that must be fixed without delay. The manager shared with the inspector how residents are involved in cooking and preparing meals. The inspector could see this was very important to certain residents and it was clear that the manager had carefully thought out how the kitchen facility could be improved for them. The old cooker needs to be checked without delay by a competent person to ensure that is safe to be used. 4 Pages Orchard DS0000013221.V267082.R01.S.doc Version 5.1 Page 14 The manager has carefully researched about the type of equipment that would be most appropriate to ensure residents’ maximum safety whilst using the kitchen and this should be taken into account when purchasing the new cooker. Residents’ bedrooms seen by the inspector were cosy and they are clearly furnished and decorated in the occupant’s choice of style. One resident who invited the inspector to see their bedroom was obviously pleased about their new furniture and proud of how they kept their room tidy. On the day of the inspection the home was seen to be clean and tidy. 4 Pages Orchard DS0000013221.V267082.R01.S.doc Version 5.1 Page 15 Staffing The intended outcomes for Standards 31 – 36 are: 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. Service users benefit from clarity of staff roles and responsibilities. Service users are supported by competent and qualified staff. Service users are supported by an effective staff team. Service users are supported and protected by the home’s recruitment policy and practices. Service users’ individual and joint needs are met by appropriately trained staff. Service users benefit from well supported and supervised staff. The Commission considers Standards 32, 34 and 35 the key standards to be inspected at least once during a 12 month period. JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for the following standard(s): 32, 34 & 35 The arrangements for the induction of staff and training are good with staff demonstrating a clear understanding of their roles. The systems for recruitment, selection and performance management of staff who work in this home are good. EVIDENCE: There is a well-established core staff team providing consistent care support to residents. Staff have a good understanding of residents’ support needs and communication methods. The relationships between staff and residents are good. A recently recruited member of staff told the inspector about the comprehensive induction programme. The manager provided details of the range of training opportunities to enable staff to do their jobs. 4 Pages Orchard DS0000013221.V267082.R01.S.doc Version 5.1 Page 16 Conduct and Management of the Home The intended outcomes for Standards 37 – 43 are: 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. Service users benefit from a well run home. Service users benefit from the ethos, leadership and management approach of the home. Service users are confident their views underpin all self-monitoring, review and development by the home. Service users’ rights and best interests are safeguarded by the home’s policies and procedures. Service users’ rights and best interests are safeguarded by the home’s record keeping policies and procedures. The health, safety and welfare of service users are promoted and protected. Service users benefit from competent and accountable management of the service. The Commission considers Standards 37, 39, and 42 the key standards to be inspected at least once during a 12 month period. JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for the following standard(s): 37, 39 and 42 This home is well run and professionally managed. EVIDENCE: The experienced registered manager provides clear leadership and vision for the home. She has successfully competed her Registered Managers Award NVQ 4 qualification. Positive feedback received from residents’ relatives and members of her staff team indicated that she is very well respected. The inspector receives copies of the proprietor’s representative monthly visit reports. Well maintained health, safety and welfare records were kept in the home and were made available for inspection. The Disabilities Trust, who runs this service, has financial and accounting systems that are subject to internal and external audits. 4 Pages Orchard DS0000013221.V267082.R01.S.doc Version 5.1 Page 17 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 X 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 X 23 3 ENVIRONMENT Standard No Score 24 2 25 X 26 3 27 X 28 2 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 X X X X X LIFESTYLES Standard No Score 11 X 12 X 13 X 14 X 15 X 16 X 17 X PERSONAL AND HEALTHCARE SUPPORT Standard No 18 19 20 21 Score X X X X 3 X 3 X X 3 X 4 Pages Orchard DS0000013221.V267082.R01.S.doc Version 5.1 Page 18 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. 1 Standard YA24 Regulation 23(2)(b) Requirement Timescale for action 31/01/06 2 YA24 16(2)(h) Cracks in the tiled area around electric sockets must be fixed without delay. The registered manager must provide details of planned retiling of the kitchen to include a reasonable timescale to complete this work. Please inform CSCI when this work has been satisfactorily completed. The cooker must be checked by 31/01/06 a competent person to ensure that it is safe to use. 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 YA24 Good Practice Recommendations The registered manager’s careful assessment and research should be taken into account to identify the most appropriate replacement cooker to be used by residents. 4 Pages Orchard DS0000013221.V267082.R01.S.doc Version 5.1 Page 19 Commission for Social Care Inspection Oxford Area Office Burgner House 4630 Kingsgate, Cascade Way Oxford Business Park South Cowley Oxford OX4 2SU National Enquiry Line: 0845 015 0120 Email: enquiries@csci.gsi.gov.uk Web: www.csci.org.uk © This report is copyright Commission for Social Care Inspection (CSCI) and may only be used in its entirety. Extracts may not be used or reproduced without the express permission of CSCI 4 Pages Orchard DS0000013221.V267082.R01.S.doc Version 5.1 Page 20 - 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!