Inspection on 09/03/07 for Perry Court

This inspection was carried out on 9th March 2007.

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

The inspector 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

Perry Court 03/03/09

Perry Court 03/03/06

Perry Court 23/08/05

Perry Court 28/09/04

Similar services:

2 Perhaver Park

The Vicarage

St George`s

5 Seafield Road

Credence House

Radfords

Honeybourne House

32 Beaumont Way

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

CARE HOME ADULTS 18-65 Perry Court Perry Street Chard Somerset TA20 2QG Lead Inspector Ms Debbi Flint Unannounced Inspection 9 March 2007 12:10 th Perry Court DS0000016252.V321031.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 Perry Court DS0000016252.V321031.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. Perry Court DS0000016252.V321031.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 3 SERVICE INFORMATION Name of service Perry Court Address Perry Street Chard Somerset TA20 2QG 01460 221468 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 Felicity Ann Rowe Mrs Felicity Ann Rowe Care Home 4 Category(ies) of Learning disability (4) registration, with number of places Perry Court DS0000016252.V321031.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 4 SERVICE INFORMATION Conditions of registration: Date of last inspection 3rd March 2006 Brief Description of the Service: Perry Court is registered for 4 adults with learning disabilities. The service is in a family style home set in the rural location of Perry Street village near Chard. The manager/provider lives on the premises and is always available to support the service users living at Perry Court. The home has paddocks, stables and two horses, garden with patio, swimming pool (which is currently in need of repair) and hot tub. It is within walking distance of the village amenities of shops and social club. Buses are available to Chard and Yeovil, which have all the facilities of small towns. The small staff team offer care and support to young, physically able adults with a learning disability. There are opportunities to attend colleges, engage in work experience, enjoy social activities, contribute to the household, learn domestic and living skills and care for the horses at the home. Each service user has their own bedroom and with the exception of one en-suite bedroom, service users share a bathroom and lounge/dining room. A conservatory is situated to the rear of the property. The kitchen is used as part of the communal space as all those living in the house help with the cooking and learn and practice new skills. The manager and staff encourage the move to supported or independent living by enabling service users to mature and develop whilst at Perry Court. Perry Court DS0000016252.V321031.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 5 SUMMARY This is an overview of what the inspector found during the inspection. This inspection was carried out in the afternoon by one inspector. The registered manager facilitated the inspection. There are currently three service users resident in the home and the inspector was able to meet and speak with all of them. The home has one vacancy. There were two part time staff working in the home on the day of the inspection and the inspector spoke with both of them. The inspector toured the home and records were examined. What the service does well: What has improved since the last inspection? What they could do better: Perry Court DS0000016252.V321031.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 6 Whilst care plans have been reviewed annually and the standard has been met it is recommended that next time the care plans are reviewed, they are completely re written as it is some years since they were originally drawn up. The manager could not find the fire risk assessment. This should be located or a new one drawn up. Please contact the provider for advice of actions taken in response to this inspection. The report of this inspection is available from enquiries@csci.gsi.gov.uk or by contacting your local CSCI office. The summary of this inspection report can be made available in other formats on request. Perry Court DS0000016252.V321031.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 7 DETAILS OF INSPECTOR FINDINGS CONTENTS Choice of Home (Standards 1–5) Individual Needs and Choices (Standards 6-10) Lifestyle (Standards 11-17) Personal and Healthcare Support (Standards 18-21) Concerns, Complaints and Protection (Standards 22-23) Environment (Standards 24-30) Staffing (Standards 31-36) Conduct and Management of the Home (Standards 37 – 43) Scoring of Outcomes Statutory Requirements Identified During the Inspection Perry Court DS0000016252.V321031.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 8 Choice of Home The intended outcomes for Standards 1 – 5 are: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Prospective service users have the information they need to make an informed choice about where to live. Prospective users’ individual aspirations and needs are assessed. Prospective service users know that the home that they will choose will meet their needs and aspirations. Prospective service users have an opportunity to visit and to “test drive” the home. Each service user has an individual written contract or statement of terms and conditions with the home. The Commission consider Standard 2 the key standard to be inspected. JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for the following standard(s): 5. Quality in this outcome area is good. This judgement has been made using available evidence including a visit to this service. Each service user has an individual statement of terms and conditions with the home. EVIDENCE: It was not possible to assess standards 1 to 4 at this inspection, as there have been no new admissions for sometime although the home does now have a vacancy. Individual case records were examined and it was noted that each service user had a statement of terms and conditions with the home. Perry Court DS0000016252.V321031.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 9 Individual Needs and Choices The intended outcomes for Standards 6 – 10 are: 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. Service users know their assessed and changing needs and personal goals are reflected in their individual Plan. Service users make decisions about their lives with assistance as needed. Service users are consulted on, and participate in, all aspects of life in the home. Service users are supported to take risks as part of an independent lifestyle. Service users know that information about them is handled appropriately, and that their confidences are kept. The Commission considers Standards 6, 7 and 9 the key standards to be inspected. JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for the following standard(s): 6, 7, 8 & 9 Quality in this outcome area is good. This judgement has been made using available evidence including a visit to this service. Each service user has a care plan which is reviewed annually with social workers and other professionals. The registered manager reviews individual service users needs on a monthly basis. Service users are supported in healthy risk taking and are clearly involved in the day-to-day running of the home. EVIDENCE: The inspector examined the care files for the three service users currently resident in the home and saw that each of then had a comprehensive care plan. The care plans for all the residents had been drawn up some years back as all three residents had been living in the home for some time. These care plans had been signed annually as reviewed. As some years had elapsed since the initial care plans were written the inspector recommended that when the manager next reviewed the care plans she rewrite them totally. The registered manager agreed to do this. Perry Court DS0000016252.V321031.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 10 The registered manager carries out a monthly audit of care plans and records this and this is very good practice. Each service user has monthly goals. Comprehensive risk assessments are in place for all three-service users and cover areas such as household chores, self-care, road safety, activities etc. All the residents said that they felt involved in the running of the home and the registered manager stated that she always consulted them when new staff were interviewed and appointed. The residents are consulted about menu’s and participate in the weekly shop if they want to. The residents fill out an annual questionnaire about the service they receive. They also have a residents handbook. Perry Court DS0000016252.V321031.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 11 Lifestyle The intended outcomes for Standards 11 - 17 are: 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. Service users have opportunities for personal development. Service users are able to take part in age, peer and culturally appropriate activities. Service users are part of the local community. Service users engage in appropriate leisure activities. Service users have appropriate personal, family and sexual relationships. Service users’ rights are respected and responsibilities recognised in their daily lives. Service users are offered a healthy diet and enjoy their meals and mealtimes. The Commission considers Standards 12, 13, 15, 16 and 17 the key standards to be inspected. JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for the following standard(s): 11, 12, 13, 14 & 17 Quality in this outcome area is good This judgement has been made using available evidence including a visit to this service. Service users are able to participate in the community in age appropriate activities. They have opportunities for personal development. They participate fully in meal preparation and enjoy their meals. EVIDENCE: Two of the service users work and one service user attends a day-care centre. One of the service users has recently obtained an NVQ which qualifies him for his job. The home has a gym, which the service users can use if they so wish. There is also a swimming pool but at the time of the inspection it was in need of repair. Service users are also able to play basketball and football within the homes’ large grounds if they so wish. Staff and service users confirmed that service users were well known in the community and were part of it. They visit the local shops and pubs and on the day of the inspection were planning to attend a local party. Perry Court DS0000016252.V321031.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 12 The standard and quality of food on offer was extremely high. Fridges, freezers and cupboards were full to the brim with a huge selection of food. On the day of the inspection a meal was being prepared which was of an extremely high standard. The residents had also participated in making cheese scones, cheese and onion pasties, sausage rolls and other snacks. Perry Court DS0000016252.V321031.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 13 Personal and Healthcare Support The intended outcomes for Standards 18 - 21 are: 18. 19. 20. 21. Service users receive personal support in the way they prefer and require. Service users’ physical and emotional health needs are met. Service users retain, administer and control their own medication where appropriate, and are protected by the home’s policies and procedures for dealing with medicines. The ageing, illness and death of a service user are handled with respect and as the individual would wish. The Commission considers Standards 18, 19, and 20 the key standards to be inspected. JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for the following standard(s): 18, 19 & 20. Quality in this outcome area is good. This judgement has been made using available evidence including a visit to this service. Service users receive personal support and their health care needs are met. One service user is on medication and self-administers this. EVIDENCE: All service users are registered with local doctors, dentists and opticians and are supported to manage their own healthcare needs. At the time of the inspection one service user had health problems and he was being supported through this. One service user is currently taking medication on a daily basis, which he selfadministers. He has developed a system which enables the provider to check that medication is taken as prescribed. Perry Court DS0000016252.V321031.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 14 Concerns, Complaints and Protection The intended outcomes for Standards 22 – 23 are: 22. 23. Service users feel their views are listened to and acted on. Service users are protected from abuse, neglect and self-harm. The Commission considers Standards 22, and 23 the key standards to be inspected. JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for the following standard(s): 22 & 23 Quality in this outcome area is good. This judgement has been made using available evidence including a visit to this service. Service users stated that they felt listened to. Service users are protected. EVIDENCE: The inspector asked all three-service users if they felt listened to and if they had any complaints. All of the service users stated that they had no complaints with the home and that they had a good relationship with the manager and staff. A complaints procedure is in place should a complaint arise. All of the service users have external contacts such as family, social workers, college or work supervisors. The registered manager has undergone protection of vulnerable adult training. The two part time staff on duty had not undergone this training but demonstrated an awareness of service users needs. Perry Court DS0000016252.V321031.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 15 Environment The intended outcomes for Standards 24 – 30 are: 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. Service users live in a homely, comfortable and safe environment. Service users’ bedrooms suit their needs and lifestyles. Service users’ bedrooms promote their independence. Service users’ toilets and bathrooms provide sufficient privacy and meet their individual needs. Shared spaces complement and supplement service users’ individual rooms. Service users have the specialist equipment they require to maximise their independence. The home is clean and hygienic. The Commission considers Standards 24, and 30 the key standards to be inspected. JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for the following standard(s): 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29 & 30 Quality in this outcome area is good This judgement has been made using available evidence including a visit to this service. The home is clean, comfortably furnished and well maintained. Bedrooms suit the needs and lifestyles of the service users. The home has spacious grounds. EVIDENCE: The inspector toured the home and found it to be clean, comfortably furnished and well maintained. A television, computer and billiards table are available for the residents use within the shared spaces. The inspector was able to see the resident’s rooms and these were all individually decorated and personalised to suit their taste. The home is set in three acres of land and outside there is a gym, basketball and football facility. There is also a swimming pool although this needed some repair. The registered manager has two horses and the residents said that they enjoyed helping to care for these. There are also sheep and two dogs. The setting of the home is tranquil with plenty of space to access for exercise and walks. Perry Court DS0000016252.V321031.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 16 Staffing The intended outcomes for Standards 31 – 36 are: 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. Service users benefit from clarity of staff roles and responsibilities. Service users are supported by competent and qualified staff. Service users are supported by an effective staff team. Service users are supported and protected by the home’s recruitment policy and practices. Service users’ individual and joint needs are met by appropriately trained staff. Service users benefit from well supported and supervised staff. The Commission considers Standards 32, 34 and 35 the key standards to be inspected. JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for the following standard(s): 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 & 36 Quality in this outcome area is good. This judgement has been made using available evidence including a visit to this service. Recruitment policies and practices are sound and robust and staff feel well supported. Staff are appropriately trained. EVIDENCE: The manager stated that she currently had two part time staff. Another member of staff was employed by the home but was currently on long-term sick leave. The manager stated that she had no problem managing with two staff as the residents were fairly independent and could manage their own self care and needs with prompting and minimum support. The inspector examined the staff file and saw that all staff had recent photographs, CRB’s, proof of identity and two references. All staff had received an induction and essential training and annual appraisals had taken place. The inspector spoke with the two members of staff on duty. Both of them stated that they loved working in the home and felt well supported. Supervision is mainly informal due to the smallness of the staff team. Perry Court DS0000016252.V321031.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 17 Conduct and Management of the Home The intended outcomes for Standards 37 – 43 are: 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. Service users benefit from a well run home. Service users benefit from the ethos, leadership and management approach of the home. Service users are confident their views underpin all self-monitoring, review and development by the home. Service users’ rights and best interests are safeguarded by the home’s policies and procedures. Service users’ rights and best interests are safeguarded by the home’s record keeping policies and procedures. The health, safety and welfare of service users are promoted and protected. Service users benefit from competent and accountable management of the service. The Commission considers Standards 37, 39, and 42 the key standards to be inspected. JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for the following standard(s): 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42 & 43 Quality in this outcome area is good. This judgement has been made using available evidence including a visit to this service. The home is well run and service users rights and best interests are protected. The home is safe and free from unnecessary hazards EVIDENCE: The home is efficiently managed and the inspector noted that the registered manager invited feedback and both the residents and visitors had filled out questionnaires on an annual basis, which asked their views on the quality of the service provided. Since the last inspection the manager has completed the registered managers award. The home has a robust set of policies and procedures. and there are good health and safety policies and procedures. Fire equipment is tested weekly and the residents are talked through drills and evacuation procedures. The manager was not able to find the fire risk assessment although she stated that one had been done. The inspector Perry Court DS0000016252.V321031.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 18 accepted that a fire risk assessment was in place as the manager demonstrated a knowledge of what was in the document. It was recommended that this be located as soon as possible or a new one be drawn up. Perry Court DS0000016252.V321031.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 19 SCORING OF OUTCOMES This page summarises the assessment of the extent to which the National Minimum Standards for Care Homes for Adults 18-65 have been met and uses the following scale. The scale ranges from: 4 Standard Exceeded 2 Standard Almost Met (Commendable) (Minor Shortfalls) 3 Standard Met 1 Standard Not Met (No Shortfalls) (Major Shortfalls) “X” in the standard met box denotes standard not assessed on this occasion “N/A” in the standard met box denotes standard not applicable CHOICE OF HOME Standard No Score 1 X 2 X 3 X 4 X 5 3 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 3 26 3 27 3 28 3 29 3 30 3 STAFFING Standard No Score 31 3 32 3 33 3 34 3 35 3 36 3 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 X 16 X 17 3 PERSONAL AND HEALTHCARE SUPPORT Standard No 18 19 20 21 Score 3 3 3 X 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Perry Court DS0000016252.V321031.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 20 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. 1 2 Refer to Standard YA6 YA42 Good Practice Recommendations It is recommended that the registered manager completely rewrite the care plans next time the are reviewed The homes fire risk assessment should be found or a new one should be drawn up Perry Court DS0000016252.V321031.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 21 Commission for Social Care Inspection Somerset Records Management Unit Ground Floor Riverside Chambers Castle Street Taunton TA1 4AL National Enquiry Line: Telephone: 0845 015 0120 or 0191 233 3323 Textphone: 0845 015 2255 or 0191 233 3588 Email: enquiries@csci.gsi.gov.uk Web: www.csci.org.uk © This report is copyright Commission for Social Care Inspection (CSCI) and may only be used in its entirety. Extracts may not be used or reproduced without the express permission of CSCI Perry Court DS0000016252.V321031.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 22 - 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!