Inspection on 10/10/05 for Park House

This inspection was carried out on 10th October 2005.

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

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

Other inspections for this house

Park House 27/11/08

Park House 27/11/08

Park House 26/04/07

Park House 14/02/06

Park House 25/01/05

Park House 14/07/04

Similar services:

Clover House

Parkside

Park Lodge

Mere Hall View

St Bonaventures

Hudson Road

Whitewalls

Home Farm

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

CARE HOME ADULTS 18-65 Park House 73 Todmorden Road Burnley Lancashire BB11 3ES Lead Inspector Mrs Marie Dickinson Unannounced Inspection 10:00 10th& 19th 2005 Park House DS0000009476.V252021.R02.S.doc Version 5.0 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 House DS0000009476.V252021.R02.S.doc Version 5.0 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 House DS0000009476.V252021.R02.S.doc Version 5.0 Page 3 SERVICE INFORMATION Name of service Park House Address 73 Todmorden Road Burnley Lancashire BB11 3ES 01282 436471 01284 414997 parkhouses@btclick.com 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) Mr Joseph Serge Zephir Care Home 13 Category(ies) of Learning disability (13) registration, with number of places Park House DS0000009476.V252021.R02.S.doc Version 5.0 Page 4 SERVICE INFORMATION Conditions of registration: Date of last inspection 25th January 2005 Brief Description of the Service: Park House is a large spacious property situated in a residential area of Burnley. It has enclosed garden areas and parking to the rear of the building. It is within a short walking distance to Burnley town centre. The home is owned and managed by Mr and Mrs Zephir. Park House accommodates service users with severe to moderate learning disabilities. Accommodation is in eleven single and one double bedroom, three of which are en suite rooms. The home is managed in two units both with lounge, dining and kitchen facilities. . Park House DS0000009476.V252021.R02.S.doc Version 5.0 Page 5 SUMMARY This is an overview of what the inspector found during the inspection. This inspection was unannounced and was carried out over a two-day period. The Inspector looked at written information and records relating to service users and staff. People who live at the home and staff on duty were asked for their views about the home and how it was managed. Consideration was also given in methods used by the owners and staff employed, to get service users and relatives views on the care provided and the home they lived in. How care was actually provided was discussed with everyone. To help carry out this inspection comment cards were sent to the service users, their relatives and visitors. These were returned and used to get information about service users life at the home. Mrs Zephir also filled in a form for the inspection showing how the home was managed and kept safe for the service users and staff. What the service does well: Before anyone stays at the home, they discussed their needs and benefited from an assessment carried out by the home. Admissions are planned. Service users benefited from excellent care planning. They lived their lives to the full. Activities were varied and service users said these were personal to them. They had the opportunity to make decisions about their lives. They said staff helped them and took into account their wishes such as when to go to bed and getting up. They learned new skills. Relatives were kept informed of progress service users made and were invited to take part in care reviews if service users wished. Relatives said they were made very welcome and praised staff for their professionalism in care. They were also invited to social events at the home, which they said they enjoyed. Service users enjoyed going out and going on holidays. They chose where they went. Relatives were equally impressed with how social activities were organised. Park House DS0000009476.V252021.R02.S.doc Version 5.0 Page 6 The high standard of resident’s healthcare plans enabled them to receive the correct support from medical professionals. Care staff had clear guidance in what each person needed. Service users took part in recruiting staff. Sufficient staff were employed who were supervised in their work. Teamwork was noticeable and staff said they enjoyed their work and chosen career. Service users said the carers treated them well. They felt ‘safe.’ One relative wrote ‘the staff are extremely friendly, welcoming, considerate and take very good care of clients’. Staff were trained in caring for people with a learning disability, and given other training as part of their professional development. This included important subjects such as abuse of vulnerable adults, health and safety and principles of care and care planning. Service users also helped to train staff. The home was very well managed. Service users had their say in how the home was managed. They received guidance in how to keep safe and had their own house rules to follow. The views of relatives and other visitors to the home were sought and the business and development plan showed a continuing investment both in the home and in staff. Professional opinion included ‘they are a well respected pro active service’. The home was very nicely decorated. Furniture provided for service users was of a good quality. Service users bedrooms were furnished the way they wanted and they could choose their own colour schemes. They ‘liked their rooms’. What has improved since the last inspection? What they could do better: Park House DS0000009476.V252021.R02.S.doc Version 5.0 Page 7 There were no identified areas that could be improved on. The home meets all standards assessed and were commended in some. 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. Park House DS0000009476.V252021.R02.S.doc Version 5.0 Page 8 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 House DS0000009476.V252021.R02.S.doc Version 5.0 Page 9 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): 2,3,4,5 Assessments of people wanting to live in the home contained sufficient information to plan their care needs. People came to stay for a short time to make sure they would want to live in the home with the other people. Staff were trained to care for people. Advice was taken from other professionals to make sure all care needs were met properly. All service users had a contract they could understand. EVIDENCE: There had been one new admission since the last inspection. Information needed to provide the right care was recorded in detail by a social care professional and by the home staff. The completed assessments also showed how the views of the person were included and used as part of recording their care needs. The service user had been visited before they were admitted to the home. This was part of a procedure that is carried out for everyone. And it helps everyone involved in planning care to consider what the person wants, if the home is right, the staffing levels are enough and what the other service users living at the home think. Staff cared for Service users. They were carefully recruited and trained to care for people with a learning disability. They worked with other professional people in caring for service users, such as psychologists and dieticians. Park House DS0000009476.V252021.R02.S.doc Version 5.0 Page 10 Contracts were given to residents. They were written and illustrated with pictures showing what the contract meant. Service users signed them. Park House DS0000009476.V252021.R02.S.doc Version 5.0 Page 11 Individual Needs and Choices The intended outcomes for Standards 6 – 10 are: 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. Service users know their assessed and changing needs and personal goals are reflected in their individual Plan. Service users make decisions about their lives with assistance as needed. Service users are consulted on, and participate in, all aspects of life in the home. Service users are supported to take risks as part of an independent lifestyle. Service users know that information about them is handled appropriately, and that their confidences are kept. The Commission considers Standards 6, 7 and 9 the key standards to be inspected at least once during a 12 month period. JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for the following standard(s): 6,7,8,9,10 Service users benefited from good assessments to ensure that all their needs were considered. Being involved in writing their own care plans meant they could have personal aims that staff knew about and helped them achieve safely. Service users policies and procedures and their attendance at staff and management meetings, helped them be involved in aspects of life in the home. Confidentiality policy informed them of how their records were always kept private. EVIDENCE: The standard of residents’ care records was very good, and included an up to date assessment of needs. There were clear directions for staff as to the type and amount of support service users needed. Specialist help required for service users was recorded and the support provided. Restrictions on service users doing what they liked that may cause them problems was recorded and agreed with them. Park House DS0000009476.V252021.R02.S.doc Version 5.0 Page 12 Service users benefited from being involved in writing their own care plans. Each person had a member of staff referred to as a key worker to help him or her with special activities such as keeping in contact with their family and personal care. This was extra to staff helping everyone each day. Service users in the home said they were pleased with their carer. They could ‘discuss things with them.’ They also said their carer took them to hospital appointments, holidays and shopping. The service users looked after their own money with the help of staff. This was recorded in their files. Care plans were reviewed regularly showing progress and changes needed in meeting needs or achieving goals. Service user goals were easy to follow. They showed who would do what to reach the desired outcome. For example one care plan had a to do list such as ‘I will open a bank account’ and ‘I will book a holiday’. When asked about care plans, service users understood what they were for. They had discussions about their care with their carer and other people who would help them, and had a copy of their care plan to follow. All relatives who completed comments cards for the inspection were happy they were kept informed of important matters involving their relative. Service users said that they were involved in staff and management meetings. They took turns on behalf of everyone to say what they wanted. They also had their own policies and procedures and ‘house rules’ they had agreed on. Information was recorded to keep people safe. During the inspection it was clear staff considered confidentiality of service users information and records to be important. These records were kept secure. Confidentiality was included in induction training and the staff handbook. Service users were confident that information about them was handled correctly. They also had information on confidentiality given to them, which was easy to understand. Park House DS0000009476.V252021.R02.S.doc Version 5.0 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 at least once during a 12 month period. JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for the following standard(s): 11,12,13,14,15,16,17 Service users living in the home were given opportunities to live a fulfilling lifestyle at the home and in the community. This included social activities and learning new skills for personal development. Service users were helped to keep in touch with their families and friends. Relatives and friends who visited were made welcome Service users were provided with a nutritious and varied diet. EVIDENCE: Weekly planners were used to show what each service user was doing. For example when they cooked a meal, cleaned their bedroom and had a bath. Staff helped them where needed. The planner they used was easy to follow. Service users were given opportunities for personal development. This was seen in care plans. Service users views about their opportunities to take part in activities were positive. They also said they pleased themselves what activity they joined in. Some service users went to College. They learned different skills such as writing and numbers and computer skills. Whatever they did it Park House DS0000009476.V252021.R02.S.doc Version 5.0 Page 14 was to their own choosing. Records of achievement were displayed in bedrooms. Discussion with service users showed how they made full use of community facilities. They went to the town regularly, and said they had enjoyed a summer garden party with family and friends at the home. They also had outings, holidays and went to concerts. These were thoroughly enjoyed. One relative who completed a comment card for the inspection stated ‘social occasions like garden parties, birthday celebrations and holidays are excellently planned’. Some service users had joined a mobility scheme in the home, which meant staff would drive them to various places. One relative wrote in a letter about activities being client focussed ‘not only for daily living, but also for wider social care including involvement outside Park House itself’. Visitors to the home were made welcome. The visiting policy enabled service users to have visitors at any time and allowed for service users to refuse to see visitors if they wished. Service users were able to invite their relatives to social events organised by staff. Relatives who completed comments cards for the inspection said ‘they were welcomed into the home’. During the course of the inspection, staff working in the home treated service users with respect. Service users can comment on this when they complete a questionnaire for the management about staff in the home. Service users had their preferred name stated on their plan. They had locks on their doors and managed their own keys. They said they spent time in their bedroom when they wanted and had agreed flexible times for going to bed. They had their own house rules they also agreed on. Service users said the food was good. Two service users discussed ‘healthy options’ they were trying. It was to their liking and they liked the result in losing weight to keep them healthy. They planned their own menus and took turns to cook. Staff helped them. Park House DS0000009476.V252021.R02.S.doc Version 5.0 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 at least once during a 12 month period. JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for the following standard(s): 18,19,20 By recording individual preferred routines likes and dislikes, this allowed service users to be cared for in a way that suited them. Service users personal care was given in a manner that respected their privacy and dignity. The healthcare of service users was monitored. The care plan each person had helped them to be understood and was very good. EVIDENCE: Service users said their routine was special to them. Individual records outlining preferred routines and likes and dislikes showed this, as they all did different things during the day and evening. Support with personal care if needed was given in private. Service users who completed comment cards as part of the inspection said their privacy was respected. Service users said they liked their carer and were happy with how they helped them. They confirmed staff spoke to other professional people about their care. This included healthcare and part of the staff role was to help them attend medical appointments. The healthcare plan was written for the service user Park House DS0000009476.V252021.R02.S.doc Version 5.0 Page 16 and included information about their medication, and what staff should be aware of if someone was not well and couldn’t say. Relatives who completed comment cards as part of the inspection showed in cases where people are unable to make decisions about their care they were consulted. Park House DS0000009476.V252021.R02.S.doc Version 5.0 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 at least once during a 12 month period. JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for the following standard(s): 22,23 Service users felt their interests were protected. They were confident in the owner and staff to deal with complaints properly. By alerting service users of what abuse can include, they were able to speak up if they were in a difficult situation. Good practice in employment, safe guarded resident’s financial interests. EVIDENCE: Service users in the home were aware they had the right to make a complaint should the need occur. They said they were confidant people would listen to them. Comments received from service users as part of the inspection said they ‘knew who to speak to if they were unhappy about their care’. They said they usually talked to their carers about matters, sometimes as a group and also individually. Service users named the owner as being their point of call in this situation. The complaints procedure was written and illustrated in a way to show service users their complaints would be taken seriously. Comments sent to the Commission also showed service users ‘felt safe’ in the home. Abuse procedures had been discussed with staff and were part of their training. Service users were given written and illustrated information to help protect themselves from abuse. Staff had also signed a declaration as a condition of their employment excluding them from any financial gain from residents. Park House DS0000009476.V252021.R02.S.doc Version 5.0 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 at least once during a 12 month period. JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for the following standard(s): Service users lived in a comfortable homely environment, which they said they liked. Their rooms were private and they were furnished and decorated to a high standard. The lounges, dining rooms, kitchens and laundry were shared. Maintenance was very good and standards of hygiene were high. EVIDENCE: Park House is a large spacious house situated near to the town centre of Burnley. The home is managed in two units. Both have lounges and dining rooms and kitchen. The laundry room is in the basement. The home was decorated to a very good standard and furnishings and fittings were ‘homelike’ in style and a good quality. Service users said they liked their home. One relative who completed a comment card for the inspection said they were ‘ really happy with the quality of the home environment’. The home was very well maintained, and records showed that the owners spent money to keep high living standards for service users. Park House DS0000009476.V252021.R02.S.doc Version 5.0 Page 19 Service users are accommodated in single and one double bedroom. Some benefited from having en suite facilities that included toilet and shower. Service users were happy with their bedrooms. And looking around the premises, it was obvious service users were able to personalise their rooms. They chose the colour scheme when they were decorated and had what furniture they wanted. There is a garden area to the front and back. The back garden is protected with a security gate. Service users said they had a garden party in the summer. They invited relatives and friends. Secure car parking is also to the rear of the property There is a separate laundry room. Service users do their own laundry with staff helping when learning this life skill. The washing machines had the correct programmes to make sure laundry was washed to a proper hygienic standard. The overall standard of hygiene in the home was very high. Park House DS0000009476.V252021.R02.S.doc Version 5.0 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 at least once during a 12 month period. JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for the following standard(s): The level of staffing was good. Good staff recruitment procedures were followed Service users had confidence in the staff working at the home.. Service users benefited from staff they helped to recruit and liked. Training provided and attended by staff was good which helped them to develop proper skills in caring. Service users were involved in staff training. Staff received regular supervision. EVIDENCE: The home was properly staffed during the inspection. The number of staff employed was linked to the needs of the service users currently living at the home. Those relatives who completed comments cards for the inspection said there was always enough staff on duty’, and another comment from a letter read ‘the standard of care is excellent and always client focussed’. Staff interviewed had good knowledge of their role and responsibility as carer. The service users were very happy with the staff in the home. They took turns to be part of the interview panel when people came for interview. They knew what to ask them at interview and had a list of questions to ask. All the service users were introduced to new staff before they started work. Park House DS0000009476.V252021.R02.S.doc Version 5.0 Page 21 Staff files showed recruitment checks to be complete. Satisfactory references and Criminal Record Bureau (CRB) and Protection of Vulnerable Adults (POVA) register check had been applied for, prior to employment. Staff had a job description to work to that outlined their responsibilities of care duties. They were also given a contract of employment. All staff had attended basic training. Information sent to the commission as part of the inspection gave the percentage of staff having completed a national vocational qualification in care level 2 and above as 50 . Staff said they enjoyed training and were helped by the owner to develop their career in care. They received supervision regularly. Service users helped to train staff. Park House DS0000009476.V252021.R02.S.doc Version 5.0 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 at least once during a 12 month period. JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for the following standard(s): 37,38,39,40,41,42,43 Service users, relatives and staff were happy with the way the home was managed. The running of the home was well organised, and everyone had an opportunity to say what they wanted to improve services. Service users and relatives were asked if they were satisfied with standards generally and the owners had in place a development plan showing investment into staff training and in the home. Guidance and support was given to staff, which helped towards service users quality of life experience in the home being good. Good practice was observed in safe working practice and the health, safety and welfare of service users, was considered daily. EVIDENCE: The owners Mr and Mrs Zephir managed the home with the support of senior staff. They were in daily contact with staff, service users and visitors. Staff and service users said they had regular meetings and could speak to Park House DS0000009476.V252021.R02.S.doc Version 5.0 Page 23 Mr and Mrs Zephir any time they wanted. A representative from the service users attended staff and management meetings to put forward their ideas and views of how the home was run. To do this staff and service users put their ideas for better care and working practice on the agenda and put them forward during meetings. Everyone then discusses how these ideas can work to the benefit of everyone. Staff said they had the opportunity to discuss work issues on a day-to-day basis and also in supervision. Service users take part in staff supervision. What they say is considered very important to help staff to work as professionals. This was recorded in easy to use picture illustrated forms, designed for everyone to understand. Staff said they had support with training and worked to a code of conduct and practice they received. Confidential records were locked away. Service users had the benefit of up to date relevant policies and procedure. These included their ‘house rules’, which they said are discussed sometimes at meetings. Service users said their views were listened to. Anonymous questionnaires were used. The views of service users and relatives from these regarding the care and facilities are published and made available for people to look at. One comment on a letter stated we ‘are totally satisfied with the care provided for my sister’ and ‘everyone at Park House go out of their way to help in any way they can and cannot recommend Park House highly enough. Comments received from service users and relatives as part of this inspection agreed with this. Other professional people describe the team at Park House as ‘professional and caring’, and ‘the service promotes independence’. Insurance cover was in place and the property was well maintained. A business plan to show how improvements would be made for service users and staff was done for the year. This included training for staff and where needed home improvements. The health, safety and welfare of service users was considered. They were involved in keeping safe. Regular fire drills were done and the service users knew what to do to keep safe. A regular safety check around the home was done with proper information recorded to keep service users safe. Training in health and safety is also provided for staff to help them at work. All senior carers were qualified in first aid. Park House DS0000009476.V252021.R02.S.doc Version 5.0 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 CONCERNS AND COMPLAINTS Standard No 1 2 3 4 5 Score x 3 3 3 3 Standard No 22 23 Score 3 4 ENVIRONMENT INDIVIDUAL NEEDS AND CHOICES Standard No 6 7 8 9 10 Score 4 3 3 3 3 Standard No 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 STAFFING Score 3 3 3 3 3 X 3 LIFESTYLES Standard No Score 11 3 12 3 13 3 14 3 15 3 16 3 17 Standard No 31 32 33 34 35 36 Score 3 3 3 4 3 3 3 CONDUCT AND MANAGEMENT OF THE HOME 3 PERSONAL AND HEALTHCARE SUPPORT Standard No 18 19 20 21 Park House Score 3 3 3 x Standard No 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 Score 3 3 4 3 3 3 4 DS0000009476.V252021.R02.S.doc Version 5.0 Page 25 NO Are there any outstanding requirements from the last inspection? STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS This section sets out the actions, which must be taken so that the registered person/s meets the Care Standards Act 2000, Care Homes Regulations 2001 and the National Minimum Standards. The Registered Provider(s) must comply with the given timescales. No. Standard Regulation Requirement Timescale for action RECOMMENDATIONS These recommendations relate to National Minimum Standards and are seen as good practice for the Registered Provider/s to consider carrying out. No. Refer to Standard Good Practice Recommendations Park House DS0000009476.V252021.R02.S.doc Version 5.0 Page 26 Commission for Social Care Inspection East Lancashire Area Office 1st Floor, Unit 4 Petre Road Clayton Business Park Accrington BB5 5JB National Enquiry Line: 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 Park House DS0000009476.V252021.R02.S.doc Version 5.0 Page 27 - Please note that this information is included on www.bestcarehome.co.uk under license from the regulator. Re-publishing this information is in breach of the terms of use of that website. Discrete codes and changes have been inserted throughout the textual data shown on the site that will provide incontrovertable proof of copying in the event this information is re-published on other websites. The policy of www.bestcarehome.co.uk is to use all legal avenues to pursue such offenders, including recovery of costs. You have been warned!