Inspection on 20/04/07 for Park Croft

This inspection was carried out on 20th April 2007.

CSCI has not published a star rating for this report, though using similar criteria we estimate that the report is Adequate. 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 3 statutory requirements (actions the home must comply with) as a result of this inspection.

Other inspections for this house

Park Croft 29/04/08

Park Croft 26/08/05

Park Croft 04/04/05

Park Croft 04/10/04

Park Croft 14/04/04

Park Croft 14/10/03

Park Croft 22/05/03

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

CARE HOME ADULTS 18-65 Park Croft Park Place Winchester Road Wickham Fareham Hampshire PO17 5EZ Lead Inspector Ms Wendy Thomas Unannounced Inspection 20th April 2007 11:30 Park Croft DS0000012168.V332851.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 Park Croft DS0000012168.V332851.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. Park Croft DS0000012168.V332851.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 3 SERVICE INFORMATION Name of service Park Croft Address 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) Park Place Winchester Road Wickham Fareham Hampshire PO17 5EZ 01329 833994 www.unitedresponse.org.uk United Response Care Home 10 Category(ies) of Learning disability (10) registration, with number of places Park Croft DS0000012168.V332851.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 4 SERVICE INFORMATION Conditions of registration: Date of last inspection 26th August 2005 Brief Description of the Service: Park Croft is a residential home for ten adults with learning disabilities, situated on the outskirts of Wickham Village near Fareham. The home is located within woodland, off the main road and ten minutes walking distance from the village. The premises include additional buildings that serve as a visitors lounge, craft and activity area, and office for the staff. Service users have their own rooms decorated and furnished to their individual preferences. The home encourages service users to be involved in day to day activities and routines, and individual choices are respected. The fees for the home range from £ 698.49 to £1519.77 per week. Park Croft DS0000012168.V332851.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 5 SUMMARY This is an overview of what the inspector found during the inspection. The home was visited on 20 April 2007 between 11.30 and 19.00. One of the people living at the home showed the inspector round, and with support from a member of staff was able to explain a little of what life in the home was like. Another of the people living there also described what they thought of the home. Interactions between the people living at the home and the staff were observed, and the inspector joined those present for lunch. The inspector also talked with two senior support workers and a support worker, and looked at records pertinent to the inspection process, including a sample of the files for the people living in the home and medication records. What the service does well: What has improved since the last inspection? There were no requirements or recommendations made in the last inspection report. Park Croft DS0000012168.V332851.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. Park Croft DS0000012168.V332851.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 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 Park Croft DS0000012168.V332851.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 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. JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for the following standard(s): 2, 3 and 4. Quality in this outcome area is adequate. This judgement has been made using available evidence including a visit to this service. More careful consideration of the compatibility of someone wanting to move to the home with those already living there, and the skills of the staff team would ensure that people moving into the home and those already living there could be successfully supported. EVIDENCE: In the past the process of admitting people to Park Croft has been good. A member of staff described how people considering moving there made a number of visits to the home to see if they liked it and to find out if they would fit in. The member of staff described how, on a previous occasion, the other people living at the home had decided that one prospective person was unsuitable for the home and the admission was not pursued. However the member of staff described how the admission of the person most recently admitted to the home had not gone through this process. A pre-admission assessment was not carried out because the staff and people living at Park Croft were already acquainted with he person because they had been living at another United Response service. They had, therefore, visited the home informally and been involved in social events with the people living there. Their records and care plans from their previous home were transferred with Park Croft DS0000012168.V332851.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 9 them. There had been no introductory visits for the person to “test drive” the service and no consultation with the people already living there or members of staff as to their opinions of the placement. Some staff voiced concerns about the appropriateness of the placement given the differences in type and level of needs, and in the interests of this person compared to those of the other people living at Park Croft. One of the people living in the home was gesturing with their hand that they didn’t want that person in the room. Staff described how the needs of this person were taking up a disproportionate amount of their time, and that others were not getting the level of support, specifically informal relaxed time to chat and carry out simple tasks with staff, that they had in the past. Staff described finding it challenging to support the person at times. They said that they had not been given any additional training in relation to this, nor had support from other sources been sought until recently. The home has a “service user’s handbook” available in the office, which gives clear information about the home. This includes diagrams and photographs. Park Croft DS0000012168.V332851.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 10 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, and 9. Quality in this outcome area is adequate. This judgement has been made using available evidence including a visit to this service. The people living at Park Croft would receive more effective and consistent support if their care plans were more detailed and if information in their files was up to date and more easily identifiable. EVIDENCE: Individual files for the people living at Park Croft were seen in the office. In a file sampled, information about background, health issues, family & friends etc., likes, dislikes, day care and other activities, communication, behaviour and eating and appetite was out of date (2004). However, there were details of meetings between the people living in the home and their key workers, which looked at the activities they had been involved in and any changes in the person’s needs. These were described as “monthly” reviews but the one examined had been completed in June 2006, August 2006, September 2006, October 2006 and February 2007. In order to ensure that information in the files and guidance to staff is up to date so that they may support the people Park Croft DS0000012168.V332851.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 11 who live in the home successfully, these should be completed monthly as designed. It was hard to filter out the useful information about how to support the people living at Park Croft from out of date records and general recording in their files. It was suggested that the layout of the files be reconsidered so that staff, especially new or bank/agency staff would be able to access vital information more readily. Some work had begun in developing profiles of the people who use the service using photographs. It was explained that the people themselves were very involved in this process. More detail in the “communication profiles” would lead to more effective communication between service users and new and temporary staff who hadn’t yet had the opportunity to get to know the service users and their means of communicating well. Generally care plans did not give sufficient detail for staff to support the people using the service in a consistent manner, or for someone unfamiliar with them to support them successfully. There were risk assessments available in the files of the people living in the home. These were updated yearly. It was explained that any modifications that were needed would be identified at the “monthly” reviews and the risk assessment documentation would be updated accordingly. A member of staff explained that the people living at Park Croft were individually supported on shopping trips to choose their own clothes and toiletries, and that they were consulted about purchases for the house and any household redecoration that was carried out. One of the people living in the home showed the inspector their room and confirmed that they had chosen the décor. They indicated that they were pleased with their room. In order to ensure the privacy of people’s bedrooms, the people living at the home are encouraged to lock them whilst they are not in them. Not everyone can do this without support. They, therefore, have to seek out a member of staff to let them in, or wait until a member of staff asks if they want their room unlocked. The people using the service do not have recording of this agreement, or risk assessments for the implications. For less assertive service users with communication difficulties, this could seriously inhibit the access they have to their own rooms. A senior support worker said that this agreement had been made verbally. There is insufficient evidence that this provides a satisfactory outcome for each person living at the home. The inspector heard about differences in the interpretation of offering choices by some of the staff and the manager, who has now resigned. Some examples of poor practice were described. Some good examples were observed during the visit to the home, including a member of staff effectively offering choices of Park Croft DS0000012168.V332851.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 12 food and drink at lunchtime. It is suggested that once the new manager is in post the staff team engage in some group discussion and further training to clarify what they and United Response view as effective means of enabling choice for the group of people living at Park Croft, especially those who are less assertive. Park Croft DS0000012168.V332851.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 and 17. Quality in this outcome area is good. This judgement has been made using available evidence including a visit to this service. The people living at Park Croft benefit from being able to take part in a variety of activities suited to their particular interests, and are happy with the food. EVIDENCE: There are ten people living at Park Croft, and at the time of the visit to the home, one was out swimming with a member of staff, one was at their day service, one was visiting their parents for a few days, and the rest were spending the day at the home. Someone who lives at another United Response service was visiting Park Croft to spend some time with two of the people living there. It was reported that staff always support one of the people living at the home on an activity out of the home each day. People also have some day care at other services, attend college, have one-to-one support worker time for Park Croft DS0000012168.V332851.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 14 activities, and participate in activity sessions run in the home’s activity room. An outside organisation runs two such activity sessions a week for those people interested. Some of the arts and crafts thus produced were on display around the home. Some of the people who use the service, who were not going out on the day of the visit, spent time sitting in the courtyard as it was a warm, sunny day. They were observed to be enjoying this. The rest of the household joined them at lunchtime and the meal was eaten at the tables in the courtyard. It was reported that one evening a week the men attended a sports club, that once a month there was a church based group that some people attended, and from time to time several people went to a group for representatives from all the United Response services in the region. Four people regularly attend the local church, and all use the local doctor’s surgery, shops and post office. Each of the people living at the home had recording sheets in their files to monitor their participation in activities. These demonstrated that most people attended a day service or had an activity out of the home three times a week. Staff described a higher level of activities than this, therefore suggesting that the records were not being filled in correctly. These records did show that some people have frequent contact with, and go out with members of their families. Staff described finding it more difficult to spend quality time in the home with the people living there due to the behaviour and needs of one person. If this is proving detrimental to some of those living there, the staffing levels must be re-examined to ensure that all are getting the support they should. The inspector joined the service users for lunch, which was a choice of egg or pork luncheon meat sandwiches followed by a cake. From observation it was evident that the service users where satisfied with the mealtime arrangements. It was noted that one of the people at the home made the sandwiches with support form a member of staff, who supported them sensitively and allowed them to do the task to the level of their ability without being critical. A member of staff explained how those living at the home had support to choose the menu for the week taking into account their communication difficulties. A member of staff supported one of the people living at the home to explain to the inspector that they had recently enjoyed a holiday with another person from the home. Four others were shortly due to go for a short break away in two groups of two with members of staff. Some people go away with a church based group each year. Park Croft DS0000012168.V332851.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 15 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 and 20. Quality in this outcome area is adequate. This judgement has been made using available evidence including a visit to this service. Improved record keeping would verify whether the people living at Park Croft had attended medical appointments, thus ensuring that their health was being monitored and any necessary action being taken. Prompt referrals and fuller consultation with staff and outside health and social care professionals would benefit those living in the home who develop emotional or behavioural needs. The manner in which medication is given ensures that this is done correctly whilst promoting the person’s privacy. EVIDENCE: A care plan for supporting one of the people living at the home was seen from that person’s bedroom. A member of staff explained that they had developed this because they had devised a successful way of working with the person in relation to their personal care. By sharing this routine, they hoped that other staff would be able follow it and thus support the person successfully. Such detailed care plans were exception rather than the norm, yet most of the people living in the home had communication needs that warranted this level of detail. Park Croft DS0000012168.V332851.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 16 A member of staff described that for several months they gave someone support with a personal care task they were able to do unsupported, because the member of staff had been unaware that this was the case. The home must make sure that records are in sufficient detail that the people living there receive the levels of support they need at all times. Some months previously there had been difficulties in the home due to the imposition of a care plan some staff felt was detrimental to one of the people living at the home. Improved consultation within the team and with appropriate health and social care professionals could have clarified the situation better and have been to the benefit of the person. Each of the people living at Park Croft had their own section in the medical records file. However these were not kept up to date with the last entries in some records for chiropody, optician and dental appointments being dated 2005. A member of staff stated that all of the people living at the home attended regular routine medical appointments, and reported that one of them had recently had a new pair of glasses. A member of staff said that the normally good relationship with the local doctors’ surgery had recently been put in jeopardy as a lack of forward planning meant that one of the people from the home had repeatedly not attended GP appointments that had been made for them. It was said that this matter had now been resolved and that appointments were now made at a time that suited the person and when staff were available to support the appointment. The home has a small room where medication can be administered privately. Staff were observed to employ utmost discretion in requesting that people take their medication. Medication was seen to be administered courteously and, where appropriate, gloves were worn. Medication administration record sheets were being filled in accurately. The medication file contained basic guidelines to follow when administering medication. It was reported that the full United Response policy was contained in a file seen in the office. The medication file contained a “medication profile” for each of the people living at the home, giving details of what medication they took and what it was for. A member of staff explained that before administering medication staff had to be given in-house training, which included shadowing another member of staff, being supervised in doing the administration themselves, and then have their performance assessed and approved by one of the senior support workers or the manager. Park Croft DS0000012168.V332851.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 17 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 and 23. Quality in this outcome area is good. This judgement has been made using available evidence including a visit to this service. The home’s procedures ensure any issues of abuse identified and concerns/complaints raised are acted on appropriately, thus safeguarding the people who use the service. EVIDENCE: The home has a copy of Hampshire’s protection of vulnerable adults policy and the United Response procedure is also available. Staff records show that staff have had training in this area. A member of staff spoken with knew to refer concerns about potential abuse to management and to follow the home’s reporting procedure. There was a copy of the home’s complaints procedure in the files of people living in the home. The inspector was not able to access the complaints log on this occasion, however previous inspection reports describe this as being maintained properly and complaints being dealt with within the agreed timescales. A member of staff spoken with was not aware of the home’s complaints procedure, however they demonstrated an awareness of how the communication difficulties of the people living at Park Croft could make it hard for staff to discern their concerns and how staff are on the lookout for signs that might suggest further investigation was needed. Park Croft DS0000012168.V332851.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 18 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 and 30. Quality in this outcome area is good. This judgement has been made using available evidence including a visit to this service. Recent activities and future plans to upgrade worn décor, and the standard of hygiene in the home ensure that the people living there live in a clean, comfortable and safe environment. EVIDENCE: One of the people living in the home showed the inspector around the communal areas of the home, and their own room. The manner in which they did this demonstrated that they were happy with the environment. Park Croft has been a residential home for 20 years. In some areas it is showing signs of wear and tear, particularly in the downstairs corridor. However, it was reported that this was due for redecoration soon. Work that had been planned for some time on the stairwell and landing had now been carried out, and a new carpet was due to be laid shortly. The lounge had been redecorated since the last inspection and new furniture had been purchased. Park Croft DS0000012168.V332851.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 19 It was comfortable and homely, and service users were observed relaxing there together. It was reported that the dining room was to be refloored and decorated before too long and the purchase of new dining chairs was being considered. Outside of the main building in the courtyard is an activity room equipped with television, video recorder, computer, activity tables, a microwave, exercise machines, a karaoke machine and examples of arts and crafts items made recently. Also in the courtyard are the home’s adequately equipped laundry, a well-stocked food store, the home’s office and a “quiet lounge” where the people living at Park Croft can entertain guests or spend time alone or in a small group. The home does not employ a cleaner. It was explained that, wherever possible, staff involve the people who live there in keeping the home and their rooms clean. On the whole the standard of cleanliness was good. Park Croft DS0000012168.V332851.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 20 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, 34 and 35. Quality in this outcome area is good. This judgement has been made using available evidence including a visit to this service. The people living at Park Croft benefit from a staff team who are committed to promoting their well-being and who are well trained. Robust recruitment practices ensure that their welfare is safeguarded. EVIDENCE: The staff on duty were observed to be very valuing of people living at Park Croft and supported them in an enabling and discrete manner. A member of staff was observed to offer them a choice of fruit squash at lunchtime waiting for each person to answer or point to the drink they wanted. Staff chatted enthusiastically with those who were soon to be going on holiday about their holiday. In talking with the staff it was evident that they have a commitment to the people living there and to promoting their well-being. All permanent staff had or were studying for NVQ level 2 or above. The two members of staff asked about training were satisfied with the training they had received from United Response. Staff training records were seen and training Park Croft DS0000012168.V332851.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 21 considered mandatory for United Response staff exceeded the National Minimum Standards. A relatively new member of staff confirmed that they had had an induction, which followed the framework recommended by the appropriate training body (LDAF). They reported that they had filled in an application form, been interviewed and had to provide referees and a Criminal Records Bureau check, in accordance with good practice guidelines for recruitment. They said that two people who use other United Response services had been involved in the interview process. They described being happy in their work at Park Croft but thought that it would have been helpful to have been able to spend more time shadowing more experienced staff when they had first started working in the home. It was not possible to access staff records during the visit to the home, however on past inspections these have been found to be in order. One of the people living at Park Croft who was able to voice an opinion said that staff were “alright.” Park Croft DS0000012168.V332851.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 22 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 and 42. Quality in this outcome area is adequate. This judgement has been made using available evidence including a visit to this service. Poor leadership at the home has meant that those living at Park Croft have not had a well managed service. However this is being addressed. Systems in place ensure the health and safety of those living and working in the home. EVIDENCE: The manager had resigned a few days before the visit to the home. Staff expressed mixed feelings about this, as they were critical of some aspects of her management. Reports on the management of the home (Regulation 26) by the area manager had identified that there were concerns about the leadership of the home. Changes had been made in October 2006, but they had not resolved the difficulties. All staff spoken with during the visit described a number of problems, and a letter recently received by the Park Croft DS0000012168.V332851.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 23 Commission for Social Care Inspection from the area manager identified that there were difficulties and United Response would be investigating these. Due to the manager’s resignation this will not now go ahead. A pre-inspection questionnaire and surveys seeking the views of the people living in the home had been sent to Park Croft by the Commission for Social Care Inspection, but had not been returned. There is no deputy manager post at the home, and although the two senior support workers have additional responsibilities to the support workers they are not part of the management of the home. They did however express a willingness to guide the service through this period without a manager with support from the area manager, who they described as being very supportive. A staff meeting had been held two days before the visit to the home and staff had volunteered to cover various management responsibilities in the interim and the area manager planned to visit the home weekly and to have daily phone contact. Staff described how the people living at Park Croft were consulted about group activities such as trips to the theatre. There are meetings for the people living in the home, and it was noted that records are kept about what is discussed. One member of staff described concerns about the manner in which some choices had been presented to those using the service. They thought this had not lead to informed choice. The new manager and the staff team will need to give considerable thought as to how to make consultation truly meaningful given the communication difficulties of some of those living at Park Croft. Health and safety was being well maintained at the home, with equipment, including fire fighting and detection equipment, being serviced as per manufactures recommendations and being tested appropriately. Those asked at the time of the visit were unable to explain how the people living at the home are involved in the home’s quality assurance processes. In a follow up phone call, the area manager explained that when he visited the home once a month to complete a report about the home for United Response, as required by regulation 26 of the Care Homes Regulations 2001, he would observe the interactions between staff and the people at the home, and talk informally with those living there. The service does not formally survey those living there or their relatives/representatives. Thought should be given to develop more effective ways of involving those who use the service in it’s quality assurance and development plans. Park Croft DS0000012168.V332851.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 24 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 2 3 2 4 2 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 X 26 X 27 X 28 X 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 2 2 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 2 2 3 X 2 X 3 X X 3 X Park Croft DS0000012168.V332851.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 25 Are there any outstanding requirements from the last inspection? No STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS This section sets out the actions, which must be taken so that the registered person/s meets the Care Standards Act 2000, Care Homes Regulations 2001 and the National Minimum Standards. The Registered Provider(s) must comply with the given timescales. No. 1 Standard YA6 Regulation 15(1) Requirement Records and care plans must contain sufficient detail that the people living at Park Croft can be fully and effectively supported at all times. Timescale for action 16/10/07 2 YA7 12(2) 3 YA19 13(1)(b) The consultation and decision 20/07/07 making process must be fully documented for individuals using the service, especially if the outcome restricts their freedoms and opportunities. The home must consult with 20/07/07 external health and social care staff as soon as concerns about a person’s physical, emotional or behavioural well-being arise. Park Croft DS0000012168.V332851.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 26 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 YA4 Good Practice Recommendations When considering admitting a new person to the home, the home should fully assess whether they can meet the needs of that person, and take into account the needs and wishes of the people already living there. Opportunity should be given for prospective person and established group to spend time together getting to know each other before a final decision is made. It is recommended that management and staff give further consideration (and possibly training) to making decision making effective and meaningful for the people living at Park Croft. The medical records of the people living in the home should be kept up to date to ensure they attend routine appointments such as dentists and opticians and that any follow up action is taken. 2 YA7 3 YA19 Park Croft DS0000012168.V332851.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 27 Commission for Social Care Inspection Hampshire Office 4th Floor Overline House Blechynden Terrace Southampton SO15 1GW 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 Park Croft DS0000012168.V332851.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 28 - 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!