Inspection on 22/08/06 for Parklands

This inspection was carried out on 22nd August 2006.

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

The inspector found there to be outstanding requirements from the previous inspection report. These are things the inspector asked to be changed, but found they had not done. The inspector also made 3 statutory requirements (actions the home must comply with) as a result of this inspection.

Other inspections for this house

Parklands 21/08/09

Parklands 03/02/06

Parklands 16/05/05

Similar services:

Thorndene

Insight - Eastchurch

Southfields

Magenta

Seabourne House

33 St John`s Church Road

Dovedale Court

Lyncol House

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

CARE HOME ADULTS 18-65 Parklands 7 Eldersley Close Redhill Surrey RH1 2AJ Lead Inspector Pat Collins Unannounced Inspection 22nd August 2006 16:20 Parklands DS0000061565.V307355.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 Parklands DS0000061565.V307355.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. Parklands DS0000061565.V307355.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 3 SERVICE INFORMATION Name of service Parklands Address 7 Eldersley Close Redhill Surrey RH1 2AJ 01737 765 179 01737 765 179 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) Mrs Mary Frances Philpot Mr John W. Musana Care Home 4 Category(ies) of Learning disability (4) registration, with number of places Parklands DS0000061565.V307355.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 4 SERVICE INFORMATION Conditions of registration: 1. The age range will be Younger Adults with Learning disability (LD) between 29 - 55 years of age excluding Physical disability (PD) and Mental Health (MH) 16th May 2005 Date of last inspection Brief Description of the Service: Parklands is a care home providing personal care for adults with learning disabilities of either gender, aged between 29 and 55 years. The home is situated in a quiet residential area within walking distance of Redhill town centre. A wide range of shops and other community amenities are close by including a leisure centre, cinemas and theatre. The home is also well served by public transport. Accommodation at the home is domestic in scale and character and all on one level in a modern, detached bungalow. A new extension has been added since the last inspection, which has substantially upgraded the home’s facilities. An application for variation of the home’s registration was in progress at the time of this inspection to increase the maximum number of service users from 4 to 5. All bedrooms are single occupancy and two share an en suite bathroom. There is also a communal bathroom, a recently extended kitchen, new utility room and office, new en suite bedroom and a comfortable lounge/dining room. The lounge door opens onto an elevated furnished terrace with steps down to the home’s mature and attractive enclosed garden. Alternative access to the garden is available through a side gate off the front garden path. Weekly fee charges were £850 to £1500 at the time of this inspection. Additional costs service users have to meet included hairdressing, toiletries, magazines, some activities, transport and holidays Details about the home’s services and facilities are contained in a statement of purpose, available at the home. Parklands DS0000061565.V307355.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 5 SUMMARY This is an overview of what the inspector found during the inspection. This was the first key inspection of Parklands. These findings are the cumulative assessment, knowledge, and experience of service provision since the last inspection in February 2006. This inspection also takes account of observations during an unannounced inspection visit undertaken by one regulation inspector on 22nd August 2006. Contact was made with the provider some hours before this visit in order to establish when the home would be staffed to facilitate access. The duration of the inspection visit was three and a half hours at which time all key national minimum standards for adults were inspected. A tour of the premises was undertaken and records, policies and procedures were sampled. All three service users, who are referred to in the report as ‘residents’ in accordance with their stated preference, had opportunity to express their views about the home. Discussion also took place with the provider, registered manager and two support workers. Comment cards were received from all three residents and two relatives following the inspection visit. The inspector would like to thank all who contributed to the inspection process. What the service does well: The environment was suitably domestic in scale and ‘homely’ in character and atmosphere. The home’s management and operation was observed to be caring and enabling. Residents received sustained encouragement, instruction and stimulation as continuing elements in their daily lives. During the inspection staff were noted to engage a resident in the preparation of the evening meal providing the necessary support and guidance. Following the meal residents cleared the table and tidied the kitchen. Observations confirmed that all residents were being encouraged to develop and practice independence skills through assessment and care planning processes. All areas of the home were clean and comfortable and residents and staff shared responsibilities for domestic tasks and garden maintenance. One resident proudly showed the inspector plants she had recently planted in the garden. Another resident later was observed watering the garden. Relationships between staff and residents were friendly and positive. A resident informed the inspector that she greatly valued having her own bedroom and that staff respected her privacy. A person centred approach was evident in the personalising of private space. A resident had a fish in a tank in her room and took responsibility for the care of her pet. Within the service there was evidence of good awareness and understanding of equalities and diversity. This understanding translated into positive outcomes for residents. Interaction between staff and residents was age-appropriate. The social model of disability was fully understood by the staff team who strived to Parklands DS0000061565.V307355.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 6 overcome barriers to residents being fully integrated in their community. The rights, choices and responsibilities of residents were being promoted in the home’s operation and management. Residents engaged in a range of suitable activities in accordance with individual interests and aspirations. These included time spent at a day centre and at a adult education college, use of leisure centre facilities, engaging in activities for maintaining fitness and health examples of which included swimming, walking, use of a gym and attendance at Weight Watchers meetings. Residents had opportunity to go to church, and enjoyed visits to theatres and cinemas, garden centres and eating out. Various trips had taken place to the seaside and countryside and to London. All residents had enjoyed holidays this year, individually with families or with the Rangers and as a group with staff at a holiday camp. The families of all residents took an active interest in their welfare and all residents spent time visiting relatives. Observations confirmed effort made to create an inclusive approach to meeting needs, respecting and valuing the opinions of family members. Comments received from relatives demonstrated a high level of satisfaction with the home’s operation. Records of meetings between staff and residents demonstrated that staff listened to and took on board residents’ suggestions and opinions. Examples included decisions about the home’s décor and new furnishings. Residents were empowered by effort made to enhance communication by producing the service users guide document and complaint procedure in a suitable format, using photographs and symbols. What has improved since the last inspection? A programme of NVQ staff training had been implemented. The home was working towards compliance with the national minimum standard for 50 of care staff to have NVQ Level 2 qualifications in care or equivalent. Staff had been issued with copies of the Code of Conduct and Practice produced by the General Social Care Council. Mostly personnel files now contained a current photograph of each employee in accordance with statutory requirements. Since the last inspection a new extension had been built and finished to a good standard. This had substantially improved the home environment. In addition to providing a new en-suite bedroom, utility room and office the kitchen had been extended in size enabling residents to dine at a kitchen table, which was their stated preference. New furniture had been purchased for the lounge and garden furniture for the terrace. Parklands DS0000061565.V307355.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 7 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. Parklands DS0000061565.V307355.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 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 Parklands DS0000061565.V307355.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 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): 1, 2, 3, 4 Quality in this outcome area is good. This judgement has been made using available evidence including a visit to this service. The information available to prospective residents and their representatives about the home was comprehensively produced in an accessible format. This enabled an informed choice about the home’s suitability. Attention was drawn to amendments necessary to the service users guide document in response to recent amendments to the Care Homes Regulations. Policy and procedures for pre-admission assessments ensured prospective residents needs and aspirations were identified and met. EVIDENCE: Information about the home had been produced in accessible formats and the latest service users guide document distributed to residents. Discussion took place with the provider and manager about recent amendments to the Care Homes Regulations 2001 and implications of these on the home. There is a need to amend the service users guide and to for further clarity about what is covered by fees and this information issued to residents and their representatives. Residents had an individual contract on their personal file. Suggestion was made at the time of the last inspection that these be developed in a more accessible format in terms of language and use of visual images and symbols. Parklands DS0000061565.V307355.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 10 There had been no further admissions since the last inspection. There remained three female residents and one vacancy. Records examined confirmed good practice admission assessment procedures were followed for all three residents. Parklands DS0000061565.V307355.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 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 Quality in this outcome area is excellent. This judgement has been made using available evidence including a visit to this service. Residents were aware of their care plans and involved in this process. Those sampled were clearly written, reflecting needs, goals and assessed risks. A person centred approach was central to the home’s management and operation. The home had a strong ethos of involving residents in decisions affecting their lives and the running of their home. EVIDENCE: The care records sampled included pre-admission assessments; risk assessments and person centred care plans. Residents were enabled to have appropriate control over their lives with the level of support needed to promote individual independence. Individual needs and personal goals of residents’ were clearly recorded and these established in consultation with residents’, their families and other stake holders/professionals. Review meetings had taken place, undertaken by care management and involving all relevant parties. Residents had been consulted in setting their care objectives and it was good to note a resident had signed her care plan. Areas of discussion with the provider and manager included how the care plan format could be further developed to enhance accessibility by using symbols and photographs/pictures Parklands DS0000061565.V307355.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 12 for individual’s who might benefit from this. Health action planning had taken place for two residents and was planned for a third. Discussed was the need to reflect this in care documentation. The residents described a flexible approach to routines that were user led. There was strong ethos in the home’s management and operation of involving residents in decisions affecting their lives. Residents expressed their continuing satisfaction with the home and quality of their lives to during the inspection and in comment cards. One resident stated to the inspector “we are lucky to live here, it is lovely” and her peers nodded their agreement. Review meeting minutes confirmed the needs of residents’ were met by the home. The Comments cards returned by all three residents’ following this inspection confirmed their shared opinion that they received the level of support necessary to meet their needs. Feedback from relatives also indicated a high level of satisfaction with service provision at Parklands. Parklands DS0000061565.V307355.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 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 Quality in this outcome area is excellent. This judgement has been made using available evidence including a visit to this service. The home meets each of these assessed standards very well. It was demonstrated that residents were encouraged and supported to lead fulfilling lives. They were enabled to integrate in the community and supported in maintaining family links. Residents enjoyed a healthy, varied diet and had a choice of food. EVIDENCE: Positive relationships evidently existed between management, staff and residents families to the benefit of residents. Residents had ample opportunities to engage in appropriate educational and recreational activities. Examples of these were attendance at social education centres and colleges where they could develop life skills improve literacy and numeracy skills and socialise with peers. All three residents had evidently very supportive families with whom they spent time on a regular basis. One resident also kept in contact with a family member in the USA by email. Two residents owned personal computers, which they used in their bedrooms. The home’s operation ensured respect for residents’ private space and two residents had keys to Parklands DS0000061565.V307355.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 14 their bedroom doors. A key was also available for the remaining resident if desired. Care practices afforded 1:1 support for each resident on allocated days to enable an individualised approach to meeting needs and aspirations. All three residents had enjoyed holidays this year. Two had gone on holiday abroad with family members; individuals also had enjoyed a holiday in Norfolk with the Rangers. The provider was involved in the day-to-day activities of the home and in various excursions including a long weekend with all residents and some staff at a holiday camp. The provider, manager and support workers were observed to interact with the residents in an age appropriate, informal manner. The atmosphere in the home was friendly and happy. Arrangements for safeguarding residents’ personal finances appeared satisfactory at the time of the inspection. Residents had building society accounts and family members had appointee responsibilities. The records sampled confirmed a system in place to account for expenditure. Hand-over procedures between staff included checks on money belonging to residents held for safekeeping on their behalf, which was their choice. All residents had access to their bank accounts and staff supported them with budgeting and overseeing withdrawals from accounts as necessary. Residents were supported by staff in choosing what they wished to eat and in purchasing food and preparing meals. The recently extended fitted kitchen was clean and suitably equipped. Residents were now able to eat at a table in the kitchen. Staff involved a resident in preparation of a roast dinner and desert for the group on the evening of the inspection. This was well presented and substantial. Records were maintained daily of food eaten by residents and these records indicated residents enjoyed well balanced, nutritious meals. Parklands DS0000061565.V307355.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 at least once during a 12 month period. JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for the following standard(s): 18, 19, 20, 21. Quality in this outcome area is excellent. This judgement has been made using available evidence including a visit to this service. Residents’ preferences were accommodated in the delivery of personal care and staff respected their right to privacy and dignity. The balance between staff’s duty of care and residents’ rights to independence and to have control over their lives appeared well managed. Arrangements were in place to ensure residents’ physical and health care needs were met and specialist services and advice sought as necessary. The management of medication was satisfactory. EVIDENCE: Residents described having control over the time they went to bed and when they got up, dependent on the days’ planned activities. Staff support was underpinned by residents’ preferences and was in accordance with individual care plans. Risk assessments had been produced relating to known health conditions. Records demonstrated health and social care needs were well met and risks managed. Residents were now all registered with the same General Practitioner (GP) following the decision of one individual to change her medical practice. The GP had invited all of his patients with learning disabilities to make an appointment with him to consider health needs and develop a health needs action plan. Two residents had had their health needs assessed and this was Parklands DS0000061565.V307355.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 16 planned for the remaining resident. Residents received advice and guidance from staff about healthy eating choices and were encouraged to include fresh fruit and vegetables in their daily diet. One resident was a member of a local Weight Watchers group and endeavoured to follow a healthy eating plan, which was her choice. Staff supported service users to engage in healthy leisure pursuits. On the afternoon of the inspection all three residents went to a local gym with staff, which was a regular activity. They also regularly went swimming and walking. There was no change to the management of medication, storage and administration, which had been overall satisfactory at the time of the last inspection. It was noted that residents’ wishes had been sensitively explored relating to ageing, illness and death Parklands DS0000061565.V307355.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 at least once during a 12 month period. JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for the following standard(s): 22, 23 Quality in this outcome area is excellent. This judgement has been made using available evidence including a visit to this service. The complaint procedure was accessible to residents and their relatives and representatives. Residents were also protected by the home’s recruitment practices. The whole team had received training in safeguarding vulnerable adults and new staff received this training as part of their induction. EVIDENCE: The complaint procedure had been produced in a pictorial format. There had been no complaints since the last inspection. Residents were able to express their views openly and stated in feedback they were happy and felt safe. Residents had meetings together with staff where issues could be discussed and resolved. A record of what was discussed and agreed at these meetings was viewed. Multi-agency safeguarding procedures were available in the home and the provider, manager and all staff had received adult protection training. Discussions with staff and management confirmed understanding of abuse thresholds and what action they should take in response to allegations or suspicions of abuse. Staff recruitment practices also safeguarded residents. There had been safeguarding adult incidents since the home’s registration. Parklands DS0000061565.V307355.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 at least once during a 12 month period. JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for the following standard(s): 24, 30 Quality in this outcome area is good. This judgement has been made using available evidence including a visit to this service. This family-scale home provides a comfortable, good standard of accommodation suitable to the needs and lifestyles of those accommodated. The home was safe, clean and hygienic and overall designed to maximise independence. EVIDENCE: The home was clean and comfortable and met the requirements of the local fire service and environmental health department. Bedrooms were adequately spacious and well personalised, reflecting the taste and choices of residents. Since the last inspection additional furniture and equipment had been purchased enhancing the comfort and homeliness of all areas. A new extension had just been finished to a good standard. This had extended to size of the kitchen and new provision included an en suite bedroom, utility room and office. An application was in progress for variation of the home’s registration to increase the numbers of registration to 5. The home had a planned maintenance and renewal programme for the fabric and decoration of the premises. Furnishings, fittings, adaptations and equipment were of good quality and suitable for its stated purpose. At the time Parklands DS0000061565.V307355.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 19 of this inspection remedial electrical work was carried out which was identified during a routine electrical inspection. Fire risk assessments and health and safety assessments were in place. The fire risk assessment had been produced and recently reviewed by a fire safety consultant. He had recommended fitting a push plate fastening on a new exit door. The provider confirmed this was planned. She was aware of the need to bracket a new fire extinguisher to the wall or to place on a stand for safety. It was recommended that a risk assessment be carried out for a secondary heater noted in a bedroom to minimise risk of burns from the hot surface temperature. Parklands DS0000061565.V307355.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 at least once during a 12 month period. JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for the following standard(s): 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 Quality in the outcome area is good. This judgement has been made using available evidence including a visit to this service. Staff on duty demonstrated commitment to supporting residents in a way that enabled expression of individuality and recognised their rights, values and aspirations. It was perceived that staff worked as a team and there was a programme of staff training to equip them with the necessary skills and knowledge to fulfil their role. The home was working towards compliance with the standard for 50 of staff to have NVQ Level 2 qualifications or equivalent. Staff recruitment procedures were in accordance with statutory requirements and safeguarded residents. EVIDENCE: The staff group was stable. There had been no turnover in staff since the last inspection. One new support worker had been recruited. Good practice recruitment procedures were demonstrated. Areas of discussion included the need for personnel files to include all statutory information, specifically copies of ID documentation and recent photograph of the new employee held on her file. Usual staffing levels were one or two staff on each shift during the day, dependent on the activities planned. Staffing levels appeared adequate and cover for absences arranged through an agency. It was evidenced that the agency had policies in place for agency staff to be suitably vetted and trained. Parklands DS0000061565.V307355.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 21 At night there was one sleeping in member of staff. On call arrangements ensured that lone workers and all staff had access to the provider and the manager at all times. The home does not have sleeping accommodation for staff. At the time of the inspection visit sleeping – in staff used a vacant bedroom. When full occupancy levels are achieved the provider stated her intention to change to waking night staffing arrangements. Consultation with staff on duty confirmed they enjoyed working at the home and felt well supported by management arrangements. Since the last inspection staff had been issued with a copy of the GSCC Code of Conduct and Practice. There was an ongoing programme of staff training. Recent training included moving and handling, foundation certificate in food hygiene, health action planning, health care risk assessment, infection control awareness, and first aid appointed person training and fire training. Further planned staff training was the common induction and medication training also NVQ in care Level 2. The provider stated that all staff had received training under the Learning Disability Award Framework. At the time of the inspection three staff had enrolled to undertake NVQ Level 2 training. The manager was an accredited NVQ Assessor. Excluding the manager, one support worker had attained an NVQ Level 2 qualification and one had NVQ Level 3. Parklands DS0000061565.V307355.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 at least once during a 12 month period. JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for the following standard(s): 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42 Quality in the outcome area is good. This judgement has been made using available evidence including a visit to this service. The home’s administration was efficient and organised and residents benefited from the ethos, leadership and management approach of the home. Quality assurance and quality monitoring systems existed but could be further developed. Policies and procedures safeguarded residents’ rights and best interests. Overall good attention was given to health and safety practices. EVIDENCE: The registered manager was suitably qualified and experienced. He had attained qualifications in care at NVQ Level 3 and Level 4 in management and the Registered Managers Award. Observations confirmed the home to be overall effectively managed and administered and communication was good between the manager and provider. Parklands DS0000061565.V307355.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 23 The provider ensured compliance with statutory provider visits. Reports generated from these visits were held in the home and copied to the CSCI. Other methods of auditing standards were evident. Discussed with management were the benefits of further developing the home’s quality assurance systems. Residents’ were actively encouraged to give feedback and express their views about care and the home’s operation at the time of their care reviews and meetings with staff. Record keeping was overall satisfactory. A fire safety risk assessment had been generated at the time of a visit from a fire safety consultant. A health and safety risk assessment was also in place. Advice was given on including the secondary heater in a resident’s bedroom in this assessment. During the course of this inspection electrical remedial work was identified to be necessary through a routine electrical inspection. The provider has confirmed that urgent work has since been carried out and the remaining work is imminently due to be undertaken. There is a need to clarify the period of cover of the home’s hard wiring electrical certificate and for this to be recorded. The home had a six-seat vehicle insured for business purposes, driven by the provider and manager only. Staff were stated to use their own cars at times to transport service users and to have business insurance cover. The provider stated staff’s insurance and driving licenses were checked on recruitment. A system was stated to be in place for periodic checks on staff’s driving licenses and insurance cover. It was noted that service users had just obtained bus passes and use of public transport was encouraged where practicable. It was noted that there was possibility of developing a small car parking facility in the future. It is suggested that at a future date the provider might also consider replacing the gravel path with a more surface for individual’s who have conditions affecting balance and walking gait. Parklands DS0000061565.V307355.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 2 2 3 3 3 4 3 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 3 32 2 33 3 34 2 35 3 36 x CONDUCT AND MANAGEMENT OF THE HOME Standard No 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 Score 3 3 3 3 x LIFESTYLES Standard No Score 11 3 12 3 13 3 14 3 15 3 16 3 17 3 PERSONAL AND HEALTHCARE SUPPORT Standard No 18 19 20 21 Score 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 x Parklands DS0000061565.V307355.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 25 Are there any outstanding requirements from the last inspection? Yes STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS This section sets out the actions, which must be taken so that the registered person/s meets the Care Standards Act 2000, Care Homes Regulations 2001 and the National Minimum Standards. The Registered Provider(s) must comply with the given timescales. No. 1. Standard YA1 Regulation 5, 5a Requirement Timescale for action 22/11/06 2. YA32 18(1)(c) 3. YA34 19 Sch2.1 For the Registered person to amend the service users guide document and produce additional information about fee charges in accordance with recent amendments to the Care Homes Regulations and supply the updated information to residents and the CSCI. For 50 of care staff to be 22/11/07 qualified to NVQ Level 2 in care or equivalent. Whilst this requirement is brought forward from the last inspection action it has been noted that action has been taken for compliance in due course. For proof if ID to be held on all 22/10/06 personnel records. 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 Parklands DS0000061565.V307355.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 26 1. 3. YA5 YA22 For contracts/statements of terms and conditions to be in an accessible format suited to the needs of residents. For care plans and records of discussions and agreements at residents’ meetings to be produced in an accessible format suited to the needs of residents. For the quality assurance system to be further developed. For a risk assessment to be carried out of the safety of the surface temperature of the secondary heater used in a bedroom. 4. 5. YA39 YA42 Parklands DS0000061565.V307355.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 27 Commission for Social Care Inspection Surrey Area Office The Wharf Abbey Mill Business Park Eashing Surrey GU7 2QN 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 Parklands DS0000061565.V307355.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!