Inspection on 19/10/05 for Park Lodge

This inspection was carried out on 19th 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 Lodge 20/06/07

Park Lodge 22/02/06

Park Lodge 09/02/05

Park Lodge 21/07/04

Park Lodge 25/02/04

Similar services:

Clover House

Parkside

Mere Hall View

St Bonaventures

Hudson Road

Whitewalls

Home Farm

Griffin Lodge

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

CARE HOME ADULTS 18-65 Park Lodge 17 Stoney Street Burnley Lancashire BB11 3PT Lead Inspector Mrs Marie Dickinson Unannounced Inspection 19th October 2005 14:00 Park Lodge DS0000009533.V250966.R01.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 Lodge DS0000009533.V250966.R01.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 Lodge DS0000009533.V250966.R01.S.doc Version 5.0 Page 3 SERVICE INFORMATION Name of service Park Lodge Address 17 Stoney Street Burnley Lancashire BB11 3PT 01282 458051 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 Mrs Linda Joyce Zephir Mrs Sarah Casey Care Home 2 Category(ies) of Learning disability (2) registration, with number of places Park Lodge DS0000009533.V250966.R01.S.doc Version 5.0 Page 4 SERVICE INFORMATION Conditions of registration: 1. The care home must at all times, employ a suitably qualified and experienced manager, who is registered with the Commission for Social Care Inspection. The home is registered to accommodate 2 adults with a learning disability. 2. Date of last inspection Brief Description of the Service: Park Lodge Stoney Street is a small terraced property.it is near to Burnley town centre. It is owned by Mr and Mrs Zephir and managed by Sarah Casey the registered manager. Two service users live at the home. They have their own bedroom and share a bathroom, lounge/dining room and kitchen. The service users manage the home with the help of trained staff. Park Lodge DS0000009533.V250966.R01.S.doc Version 5.0 Page 5 SUMMARY This is an overview of what the inspector found during the inspection. This inspection was unannounced. The Inspector looked at written information and records relating to service users and staff. One person who lived at the home and a member of staff on duty was asked for their views about the home and how it was managed. How care was actually provided was discussed. Consideration was also given in methods used by the owner’s, manager and staff employed, to get service users and relatives views on the care provided and the home they lived in. 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. The manager also filled in a form for the inspection showing how the home was managed and kept safe for both service users and staff. What the service does well: The home is ideal for both service users as it provides a comfortable small easy to manage living environment. Before both service users decided to live there, they had discussed wanting to live as independently as possible with staff support. They were friends. They could understand their contract and what it meant. The type of care planning used was very good which benefited them both. They lived their lives to the full and enjoyed various activities personal to them. They both had the opportunity to make decisions about their lives. Although staff helped them, they had control over the management of their care and their home. Relatives were ‘very happy’ and kept informed of progress service users made. They were invited to take part in care reviews if service users wished. Relatives said they were made very welcome and kept in touch with what was going on. They were also invited to social events at the home. Service users enjoyed their lives such as going to work, college, also going out socially and going on holidays. They chose where they went. Park Lodge DS0000009533.V250966.R01.S.doc Version 5.0 Page 6 The high standard of residents healthcare plan 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. Service users said the carers treated them well. They felt ‘safe.’ One relative wrote ‘the staff are always friendly’. 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 manager received supervision from the owners who also sent a regular report of their visit to the home to the Commission. The home was very well managed. Both service users liked the manager and they had their say in how their 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 and furnished to how both service users wanted. Furniture provided for them was of a good quality. They were both consulted about any changes being made in staffing and in any work carried out in the home. What has improved since the last inspection? What they could do better: Park Lodge DS0000009533.V250966.R01.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 Lodge DS0000009533.V250966.R01.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 Lodge DS0000009533.V250966.R01.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): 2,5 Both service users had lived in the home for a long time. Before they came to live there they discussed what help they needed. They had a contract they understood. EVIDENCE: There had been no new admissions since the last inspection. The service users in the home had been assessed prior to living in the home. They both had a contract they understood and agreed. They were written and illustrated with pictures showing what the contract meant. Service users signed them. Park Lodge DS0000009533.V250966.R01.S.doc Version 5.0 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 at least once during a 12 month period. JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for the following standard(s): 6,7,8,9 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 fully in life in the home. 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 both service users’ needed. Restrictions on service users doing what they liked that may cause them problems was recorded and agreed with them. Service users benefited from being involved in writing their own care plans. People had a member of staff referred to as a key worker to help them with special activities such as keeping their home nice, keeping appointments and being involved with their family. This type of help was extra to staff helping Park Lodge DS0000009533.V250966.R01.S.doc Version 5.0 Page 11 everyone each day. One service user said she was pleased with her carer. She could ‘discuss things with her.’ Carers took her on holidays and grocery shopping. Both 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. The service user knew about her care plan and said she discussed her care at meetings. All relatives who completed comments cards for the inspection were happy they were kept informed of important matters involving their relative. The service user said that they were involved in staff and management meetings. They had weekly house meetings. They also had their own policies and procedures and ‘house rules’ they both agreed. Both service users benefited from living a fairly independent life. To help them information was recorded to keep them safe. Park Lodge DS0000009533.V250966.R01.S.doc Version 5.0 Page 12 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 Both 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. They were helped to keep in touch with their families and friends. Relatives and friends who visited were made welcome Service users were helped to plan and prepare a nutritious and varied diet that suited them. EVIDENCE: Weekly planners were used to show what both service users did. 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. Both service users looked after their home. This was seen in care plans. The service user at home during inspection said they pleased themselves what activities they did. They chose what they wanted to do. The service user also said she enjoyed going to work.. They had been on holiday with their friends from other homes. Park Lodge DS0000009533.V250966.R01.S.doc Version 5.0 Page 13 They also had outings, holidays and went to concerts. These were thoroughly enjoyed. They both went shopping. Visitors to the home were made welcome. The visiting policy enabled both service users to have visitors at any time. They were able to invite their relatives to social events in the scheme organised by staff. The service user said she could tell the manager about the way staff treat her by filling in a questionnaire given to her. She said staff treated her well Both service users had locks on their doors and managed their own keys. They spent time in their bedroom when they wanted and ‘pleased themselves what they did’. They had their own house rules they both agreed on. The service user said the food was good. They both agreed menus and took turns to cook. Staff helped them They also shopped for their own food and staff went with them. Park Lodge DS0000009533.V250966.R01.S.doc Version 5.0 Page 14 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 By recording individual preferred routines likes and dislikes, this allowed both service users to be cared for in a way that suited them. Service users personal care was given when needed 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: The service user said although two people lived in the home, their routine was special to them. Individual records outlining preferred routines and likes and dislikes showed this, as they both did different things during the day and evening. Personal care was discussed and the service user said she managed. Support would be given if needed in private. Both service users who completed comment cards as part of the inspection said their privacy was respected. The service user said she liked her carer and was happy with how she was helped. This included healthcare and part of the staff role was to help them both to attend medical appointments such as routine health screening and dental appointments. Park Lodge DS0000009533.V250966.R01.S.doc Version 5.0 Page 15 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 Lodge DS0000009533.V250966.R01.S.doc Version 5.0 Page 16 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): Service users felt their interests were protected. They were confident in the manager and staff to deal with complaints properly. Relatives shared this view. 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: Both service users in the home were aware they had the right to make a complaint should the need occur. Comments received from service users as part of the inspection said they ‘knew who to speak to if they were unhappy about their care’. The service user at home during inspection said they usually talked to their carers about matters, sometimes together and also individually. 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. Relative’s comments included ‘any concerns would be dealt with properly’. 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 Lodge DS0000009533.V250966.R01.S.doc Version 5.0 Page 17 Park Lodge DS0000009533.V250966.R01.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): 26,27,28,30 Both service users lived in a comfortable homely environment, which suited them both. They had their own bedrooms that were private and furnished and decorated to their liking. The lounge/dining room and kitchen was comfortable and decorated and furnished to a high standard. The home was kept very clean and organised.. EVIDENCE: Park Lodge Stoney Street is a small two bed roomed terraced property near to Burnley town centre. The home accommodates two people in single bedrooms. The service user at home during the inspection said she ‘liked her home’. The lounge had been decorated and she helped to choose the wallpaper and colour scheme. A new carpet had also been fitted. There was a small kitchen and yard at the back. The home was decorated to a very good standard and furnishings and fittings were ‘homelike’ in style and a good quality. The home was very well maintained, and records showed that the owners spent money to keep high living standards for both service users. Park Lodge DS0000009533.V250966.R01.S.doc Version 5.0 Page 19 The service user at home during inspection said she was happy with her bedroom. It was personalised and had the furniture she wanted. Both service users did their own laundry with staff helping as part of practising life skills. 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 Lodge DS0000009533.V250966.R01.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): 31,32,33,34,35,36 The level of staffing was right for the service users. Good staff recruitment procedures were followed. Service users had confidence in the staff working at the home. They 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. Staff worked in the home only to make sure both service users are helped at the times they need support. The number of staff present in the home at any time was linked to the needs of both service users, and meant to be the least intrusive. Relatives who completed comments cards for the inspection said there was always enough staff on duty’. The staff on duty had good knowledge of her role and responsibility as carer. The service user said she was happy with the staff in the home. She could be part of the interview panel when people came for interview, although no new staff had started work for a long time. Relatives referred to staff as ‘always friendly’ and ‘everyone has the same aim’. Park Lodge DS0000009533.V250966.R01.S.doc Version 5.0 Page 21 Staff files for staff currently working 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 . The staff member on duty said she enjoyed training that was ongoing. The manager was supportive. She received supervision regularly. Service users helped to train staff. Park Lodge DS0000009533.V250966.R01.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 both service users and staff 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 both 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 home is owned by Mr and Mrs Zephir and managed by Sarah Casey the registered manager. The manager holds the right qualifications for this position. The owners carry out monthly-unannounced visits to the home and send a copy of the record they make to the Commission. Park Lodge DS0000009533.V250966.R01.S.doc Version 5.0 Page 23 Service users had regular house meetings and could also speak to Mr and Mrs Zephir any time they wanted. A representative from the service users in the scheme attended staff and management meetings to put forward their ideas and views of how the home was run. Everyone then discusses how these ideas can work to the benefit of everyone. The member of staff on duty said she had the opportunity to discuss work issues on a day-to-day basis with the manager 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. Support was given with training and staff worked to a code of conduct and practice they received. Confidential records were locked away. Both service users had the benefit of up to date relevant policies and procedure. These included their ‘house rules’, which they discussed. Service users 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. Comments included ‘the home is the best choice for my daughter’, and ‘very homely’. Another comment read ‘a very good team’. Other professional people describe the team at Park Houses 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 user at home 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 Lodge DS0000009533.V250966.R01.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 x x 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 x 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 CONDUCT AND MANAGEMENT OF THE HOME 3 PERSONAL AND HEALTHCARE SUPPORT Standard No 18 19 20 21 Park Lodge Score 3 3 X x Standard No 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 Score 3 3 4 3 3 3 4 DS0000009533.V250966.R01.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 Lodge DS0000009533.V250966.R01.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 Lodge DS0000009533.V250966.R01.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!