Please wait

Please note that the information on this website is now out of date. It is planned that we will update and relaunch, but for now is of historical interest only and we suggest you visit cqc.org.uk

Inspection on 06/12/06 for Polefield Nursing Home

Also see our care home review for Polefield Nursing Home for more information

This inspection was carried out on 6th December 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 made no statutory requirements on the home as a result of this inspection and there were no outstanding actions from the previous inspection report.

What follows are excerpts from this inspection report. For more information read the full report on the next tab.

What the care home does well

The home had an open visitors policy and many of the residents received regular visits from family and friends. Visitors spoken to during the inspection confirmed the home made them very welcome, and they complimented the home on the quality of care they provided to their relatives. The home has introduced a range of e-learning training course for staff, and there was evidence of all staff attending relevant training courses, documented in individual staff files. Written information on a wide range of healthcare best practice was available for staff development. Relatives were involved in the review of care plans and were invited to write their comments and suggestions in the relevant sections of the care plans.

What has improved since the last inspection?

The home has introduced online training courses in the protection of vulnerable adults and there was evidence of staff undertaking the course, and completing follow up knowledge questionnaires. Residents and relatives spoken to confirmed they were aware of the complaints procedure and copies were available in the entrance to the home. The home appeared clean, and well maintained and free from any unpleasant odours. The proprietor is on site throughout the week and esures maintenance is carried out as it is required. There was evidence of regular redecoration throughout the home.

What the care home could do better:

The proprietor should continue to consider options for extending smaller bathrooms so hoists can be used more easily, to ensure residents are able to bathe in comfort. The home should develop a key holding system to enable access to all information during the matrons` absence, taking into account issues of confidentiality. Although staff confirmed they received regular supervision from qualified nurses, the home should develop a recording system for staff supervision provided. This will provide evidence that staff have the necessary skills to meet the needs of residents.

CARE HOMES FOR OLDER PEOPLE Polefield Nursing Home 77 Polefield Road Blackley Manchester M9 7EN Lead Inspector Sue Henstock Key Unannounced Inspection 10:00 6th December 2006 X10015.doc Version 1.40 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 Polefield Nursing Home DS0000021655.V313994.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 Older People. 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. Polefield Nursing Home DS0000021655.V313994.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 3 SERVICE INFORMATION Name of service Polefield Nursing Home Address 77 Polefield Road Blackley Manchester M9 7EN 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) 0161 795 4102 0161 740 4903 Rosewood Care Services Limited Ms Kay Rooney Care Home 40 Category(ies) of Old age, not falling within any other category registration, with number (38), Physical disability (2) of places Polefield Nursing Home DS0000021655.V313994.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 4 SERVICE INFORMATION Conditions of registration: 1. 2. 3. The maximum number of service users requiring nursing care shall be 37 and the maximum number of service users requiring personal care only shall be 3. All service users are aged 60 years and over except two named service users requiring care by reason of physical disability. Registration is subject to compliance with the minimum nursing staffing levels indicated in the Notice previously served in accordance with Section 25 (3) of the Registered Homes Act 1984 issued on 20 December 2000. 23rd February 2006 Date of last inspection Brief Description of the Service: Polefiled Nursing Home is a care home providing nursing care and accommodation for a maximum of 40 older people. The home is able to accommodate 37 older people assessed as requiring nursing care in addition to 3 older people assessed as requiring personal care only. Fees range from £373.54 to £482.10. The home is situated in a residential area in the Blackley district in the North of the City of Manchester. The home is well served by public transport links and within easy reach of Manchester, Rochdale and Oldham Centres. The home is close to local facilities, shops, Boggart Hole Clough Park and other cultural and recreational facilities. The home is a purpose built care home that provides accommodation on two floors. The home’s second floor offers office accommodation and storage. The home has off road parking for a number of vehicles. The main entrance to the home has low ramp access and was accessible to wheelchair users. A passenger lift provides access to all levels of the home. Polefield Nursing Home DS0000021655.V313994.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 5 SUMMARY This is an overview of what the inspector found during the inspection. This was an unannounced site visit to the home as part of the inspection process. The inspection took place on 6 December 2006. The home care manager, deputy and proprietor were on duty. The matron was not on duty and a follow up visit was arranged for 18 December 2006. The opportunity was taken throughout the inspection visit to speak to residents, staff and visitors. A selection of care plans, medication records, staff records, and maintenance records were inspected, and a tour of the building was undertaken. A pre inspection questionnaire and six user surveys were provided prior to the inspection visit and information held on file by the Commission was also considered. All requirements and recommendations from the previous inspection had been addressed. What the service does well: What has improved since the last inspection? The home has introduced online training courses in the protection of vulnerable adults and there was evidence of staff undertaking the course, and completing follow up knowledge questionnaires. Residents and relatives spoken to confirmed they were aware of the complaints procedure and copies were available in the entrance to the home. The home appeared clean, and well maintained and free from any unpleasant odours. The proprietor is on site throughout the week and esures maintenance Polefield Nursing Home DS0000021655.V313994.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 6 is carried out as it is required. There was evidence of regular redecoration throughout the home. 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. Polefield Nursing Home DS0000021655.V313994.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 7 DETAILS OF INSPECTOR FINDINGS CONTENTS Choice of Home (Standards 1–6) Health and Personal Care (Standards 7-11) Daily Life and Social Activities (Standards 12-15) Complaints and Protection (Standards 16-18) Environment (Standards 19-26) Staffing (Standards 27-30) Management and Administration (Standards 31-38) Scoring of Outcomes Statutory Requirements Identified During the Inspection Polefield Nursing Home DS0000021655.V313994.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 8 Choice of Home The intended outcomes for Standards 1 – 6 are: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Prospective service users have the information they need to make an informed choice about where to live. Each service user has a written contract/ statement of terms and conditions with the home. No service user moves into the home without having had his/her needs assessed and been assured that these will be met. Service users and their representatives know that the home they enter will meet their needs. Prospective service users and their relatives and friends have an opportunity to visit and assess the quality, facilities and suitability of the home. Service users assessed and referred solely for intermediate care are helped to maximise their independence and return home. The Commission considers Standards 3 and 6 the key standards 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 and 5 Quality in this outcome are is good. This judgement has been made using the available evidence including a visit to this service. Prospective residents’ needs are assessed prior to admission and they and their families had the information they needed to make an informed choice. EVIDENCE: Many of the residents suffered from dementia and their relatives, or other carers, made decisions on their behalf. Copies of the Service User Guide were available in the entrance to the home and there were copies of contracts in the files inspected. The home has two floors, with separate nursing teams on each floor providing care on a daily basis. The needs of residents were similar on both floors. The manager described the referral process. On receipt of a referral letter the home liaised with the hospital ward (most referrals were received from North Manchester), social worker and/or care manager. The matron and care manager from the home and the social worker or care manager visited the prospective resident to carry out an assessment of need, involving the family Polefield Nursing Home DS0000021655.V313994.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 9 in the process. Residents’ needs were fully assessed and there were opportunities for them, and their families, to visit the home prior to admission. Occasionally residents were referred for respite care, usually because of emergencies. Discussions with a relative confirmed she had met staff and taken part in her husband’s assessment prior to the placement being agreed. She visited the home with her family and said staff had been very welcoming, and gave her lots of information. She didn’t have a written copy of the Service User Guide (SUG) but copies were available in the entrance to the home. She had received a contract from the SW, had checked the details, signed and returned it to the SW and was waiting for a copy. Another relative stated that the health care needs of their relatives were ‘very well met by the home’, and compared the home very favourably with others they had used. All resident files inspected contained detailed copies of nursing assessments, and assessments relating to risk; healthcare needs; nutrition; medical care, care plans; monthly recording charts. Copies of the SUG were not available in individual files, although copies were available in the entrance to the home. Files inspected had copies of contracts, mainly from Manchester City Council and Continued Nursing Care although none contained financial details. Polefield Nursing Home DS0000021655.V313994.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 10 Health and Personal Care The intended outcomes for Standards 7 – 11 are: 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. The service user’s health, personal and social care needs are set out in an individual plan of care. Service users’ health care needs are fully met. Service users, where appropriate, are responsible for their own medication, and are protected by the home’s policies and procedures for dealing with medicines. Service users feel they are treated with respect and their right to privacy is upheld. Service users are assured that at the time of their death, staff will treat them and their family with care, sensitivity and respect. The Commission considers Standards 7, 8, 9 and 10 the key standards to be inspected at least once during a 12 month period. JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for the following standard(s): 7,8,9 and 10 Quality in this outcome area is good. This judgement has been made using the available evidence including a visit to this service. The personal and social care needs of residents were assessed and met. Residents were treated with dignity and respect. EVIDENCE: All residents had detailed care plans, which contained details of health and personal care needs, optician, dental, hearing and hospital outpatient appointments. The home involved residents, where they are able to participate, and all relatives in the assessment and care palnning processes. There were written comments in care plans made by relatives, as part of care plan reviews. The homes’ policies, procedures and record keeping ensured residents’ health and personal care needs were monitored and appropriate action taken. The manager stated that she and the matron met with families and residents prior to admission and involved them in the assessment process. Two relatives Polefield Nursing Home DS0000021655.V313994.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 11 spoken to confirmed they had been fully involved in all aspects of their relatives assessment and care plans. There was evidence in care plans seen of care reviews with relatives, who were invited to write their views in the care plan, for example, whether they were happy with the care or had any suggestions or concerns. Two relatives, who visited on a daily basis, said the health care needs of their relative were fully met. One described previous experiences in other homes where they had been unable to meet the residents’ health needs. Another commented that she was very impressed with how her husbands’ needs were being met, and commented favourably on the care she had observed others receiving. There was documented evidence of attention being paid to nutritional issues and staff identified a number of residents who required additional food supplements. Records in individual files indicated residents dietary needs were appropriately monitored and needs met. There are a number opf shared bedrooms in the home. The manager stated that occupancy of a double room was voluntary. She gave a positive example of two people sharing a room, who had both been anxious staying in single bedrooms. The move to a double room had been discussed with the residents and their relatives and all parties were happy with the outcome. During the visit staff were observed speaking to residents, and visitors, in a friendly respectful manner. Residents and visitors spoken to confirmed staff were always helpful, and responded to requests. The treatment room was well stocked, tidy and contained a wide range of information relating to specific medical and healthcare issues, such as, dementia; wound care; care of pressure areas; diabetes; and medications. Clear policies and procedures were available for staff on all aspects of nursing care and there was evidence in individual staff files seen of attendance at appropriate training courses. All medications were appropriately stored, administered, recorded and audited including controlled drugs. Polefield Nursing Home DS0000021655.V313994.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 12 Daily Life and Social Activities The intended outcomes for Standards 12 - 15 are: 12. 13. 14. 15. Service users find the lifestyle experienced in the home matches their expectations and preferences, and satisfies their social, cultural, religious and recreational interests and needs. Service users maintain contact with family/ friends/ representatives and the local community as they wish. Service users are helped to exercise choice and control over their lives. Service users receive a wholesome appealing balanced diet in pleasing surroundings at times convenient to them. The Commission considers all of the above key standards to be inspected at least once during a 12 month period. JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for the following standard(s): 12,13,14 and 15 Quality in this outcome area is good. This judgement has been made using the available evidence including a visit to this service. Residents are supported to maintain contact with their families and to take part in organised activities in the home. The home provided a well balanced and appealing diet. EVIDENCE: The home had an organised activity programme, for three days per week. There was an open visiting policy and there were several visitors during the inspection. The choice of food and menus were discussed with residents and their relatives, and special dietary needs were catered for, including food supplements. Activity plans were evident in care plans inspected. There was an activity programme displayed in the entrance to the home. Only three residents were able to engage in any conversation – many were suffering from dementia and/or had communication difficulties. Discussions with three residents indicated that they enjoyed watching TV, although one said it was on all day, talking to visitors and pariticipating in the social activities the home organised. Polefield Nursing Home DS0000021655.V313994.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 13 One gentleman said he liked to keep active and would like more activities outside of the home, he missed his daily walks, although he did some exercises to keep fit. He had been a keen sportsman, playing football and bowls but there were no opportunities for him to do this now. Residents and staff spoken to said they enjoyed the garden when the weather was warm. The home was trying to arrange a contract with a taxi company who could transport people in wheelchairs so they could access community activities. There were plans for some residents to attend Christmas carol and church services. On the day of the inspection the home was very busy putting Christmas decorations up, which the residents enjoyed. There were several visitors in the home throughout the inspection and staff and residents confirmed that there are always lots of family visitors. Residents and relatives were consulted on their likes and dislikes, including what foods they preferred. Mealtimes were flexible, particularly breakfast and supper, with some residents choosing to take breakfast in their rooms, others in the dining area or sitting room. There was a choice of meals, and residents said the food was good. Visiting relatives were able to have meals when they visited. The chef was able to meet dietary needs and there was evidence in the kitchen and in care plans of specific dietary needs being met. Polefield Nursing Home DS0000021655.V313994.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 14 Complaints and Protection The intended outcomes for Standards 16 - 18 are: 16. 17. 18. Service users and their relatives and friends are confident that their complaints will be listened to, taken seriously and acted upon. Service users’ legal rights are protected. Service users are protected from abuse. The Commission considers Standards 16 and 18 the key standards to be inspected at least once during a 12 month period. JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for the following standard(s): 16,17 and 18 Quality in this outcome area is good. This judgement has been made using the available evidence including a visit to this service. The home provided a safe environment for residents. Policies and practices of the home protect residents from abuse. EVIDENCE: A copy of the complaints procedure was displayed in the entrance to the home and in both nursing stations. The manager was advised to make copies of the complaints policy readily available to residents and relatives. There were two related complaints detailed in the complaint log book, with copies in relevant care plans, which had been appropriately dealt with. If a resident or relative had a complaint the manager said they would discuss it with them to see if it could be resolved, and if necessary given them a complaint form to complete. Two relatives confirmed they were aware of how to make a complaint, and one commented that ‘he couldn’t imagine having to make a complaint as the home met all of his realtives needs’. Residents spoken to said they would talk with staff. The home has introduced on-line training course, with accompanying videos, on a range of topics, including protecting vulnerable adults. There was evidence that all staff, including domestic staff, had undertaken the POVA training, and completed knowledge questionnaires, marked by the matron. Polefield Nursing Home DS0000021655.V313994.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 15 These were available in individual staff files. A copy of Manchester MultiAgency POVA policy and ‘No Secrets’ were available. There was also evidence of staff undertaking risk assessment, infection control and fire training, with marked knowledge questionnaires in their staff files. Discussions with staff on duty during the inspection suggested they had a good understanding of issues of abuse,were aware of the policies and procedures in place and knew what course of action to take if necessary. Copies of all policies and procedures, and additional educational information, were available for staff in the treatment room and nurse stations. Polefield Nursing Home DS0000021655.V313994.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 16 Environment The intended outcomes for Standards 19 – 26 are: 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. Service users live in a safe, well-maintained environment. Service users have access to safe and comfortable indoor and outdoor communal facilities. Service users have sufficient and suitable lavatories and washing facilities. Service users have the specialist equipment they require to maximise their independence. Service users’ own rooms suit their needs. Service users live in safe, comfortable bedrooms with their own possessions around them. Service users live in safe, comfortable surroundings. The home is clean, pleasant and hygienic. The Commission considers Standards 19 and 26 the key standards to be inspected at least once during a 12 month period. JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for the following standard(s): 19,20,21,22,25 and 26 Quality in this outcome area is good. This judgement has been made using the available evidence including a visit to this service. The home provided a clean, safe, comfortable and homely environment for residents. Residents had access to specialist equipment and there were sufficient toilets and bathrooms to meet their needs. EVIDENCE: All areas of the home appeared clean, comfortable, tidy and free from any odours. There are two floors, each with a sitting room, small dining room, three bathroom/shower rooms and toilets, and residents’ bedrooms. A vacant bedroom was inspected. It was well decorated and maintained, with small ornaments to make it homely. Residents were able to bring in their own furniture where requested, and most had their own TV sets. The home had spare sets for anyone who wanted opne. There was evidence of personal possessions in individual bedrooms. Polefield Nursing Home DS0000021655.V313994.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 17 Two of the three bathrooms on each floor do not have sufficient room for a hoist to be used comfortably. The third bathroom is larger and does accommodate a hoist but the manager stated that it could still be difficult with some residents. The proprietor stated he is looking at ways of changing the two smaller bathrooms and a contractor had recently inspected them with a view to drawing up plans to alter the bathrooms. Staff were observed ensuring residents personal dignity and privacy were maintained, for example, in using the toilets and commodes. The proprietor was on site most days and carried out maintenance when necessary. The home had contracts with external contractors and there was documentary evidence that all monthly and annual checks had been undertaken. The home is waiting for a new fire certificate following a fire assessment. The assessment was available for inspection and indicated the fire officer had no major concerns. There was a rolling programme for decoration and the proprietor decorates bedrooms as they become vacant. All carpets were professionally cleaned every 6 – 8 weeks and appeared to be in good condition. The main kitchen was well equipped, appeared tidy and clean and there was evidence of daily freezer/fridge temperature checks; cleaning schedules; and menus were displayed. The dry food store cupboard was stocked and the chef described the rotation of food stocks on a weekly basis as stocks were replenished. There appeared to be a good selection of foods for residents. In addition to the main kitchen there were two small kitchens, one on each floor, where staff and relatives could make drinks and snacks. There was a mature garden to the rear of the home which residents said they enjoyed in warmer weather. Polefield Nursing Home DS0000021655.V313994.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 18 Staffing The intended outcomes for Standards 27 – 30 are: 27. 28. 29. 30. Service users’ needs are met by the numbers and skill mix of staff. Service users are in safe hands at all times. Service users are supported and protected by the home’s recruitment policy and practices. Staff are trained and competent to do their jobs. The Commission consider all the above are key standards to be inspected at least once during a 12 month period. JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for the following standard(s): 27,28,29 and 30 Quality in this outcome area is good. This judgement has been made using the available evidence including a visit to this service. Residents’ needs were met by staff who had the appropriate skills and qualifications. The homes’ recruitment policy and practices ensured residents were supported and protected. EVIDENCE: The home had qualified nurses in charge of all shifts, with dedicated staff teams providing care and support on each of the two floors. The home had a file containing master documents for job descriptions, induction processes; training records and performance appraisal documents. Staff files inspected contained all relevant documentation including, application forms, references, and training records. CRB certificates were not kept in individual staff files, in order to respect confidentiality. A separate file was held, and made available, by the matron, during a second visit. All certificates were in order. The matron was advised to develop a system to allow the care manager to hold a key to confidential information in her absence, thereby ensuring all records are available for inspection at all times. There was regular training available for staff, and a training session took place during the inspection visit. The home had introduced a series of training videos and knowledge questionnaires on a range of topics, including POVA. All Polefield Nursing Home DS0000021655.V313994.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 19 staff had undertaken the training. There was documented evidence of staff completing the questionnaires, marked and scored by the matron. Discussions with staff confirmed they understood the principles of POVA, were aware of policies and procedures in place, and what action they would take if required. Polefield Nursing Home DS0000021655.V313994.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 20 Management and Administration The intended outcomes for Standards 31 – 38 are: 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. Service users live in a home which is run and managed by a person who is fit to be in charge, of good character and able to discharge his or her responsibilities fully. Service users benefit from the ethos, leadership and management approach of the home. The home is run in the best interests of service users. Service users are safeguarded by the accounting and financial procedures of the home. Service users’ financial interests are safeguarded. Staff are appropriately supervised. 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 and staff are promoted and protected. The Commission considers Standards 31, 33, 35 and 38 the key standards to be inspected at least once during a 12 month period. JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for the following standard(s): 31,33,34,35,36,37 and 38 Quality in this outcome area is good. This judgement has been made using the available evidence including a visit to this service. The home was managed in the best interest of the residents through effective management with clear leadership. Residents’ financial interests, rights and best interests were safeguarded by the homes’ policies and procedures. EVIDENCE: Six CSCI user and carer questionnaires were returned and overall comments about the home and support provided were positive. All respondents said they had received sufficient information about the home pre admission and that they received the care and support they required. The manager stated she talked to residents and their families about their views and they were invited to document their comments in the residents individual care plan. Polefield Nursing Home DS0000021655.V313994.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 21 The proprietor was on site every day and oversaw all maintenance issues, and there was evidence of work being undertaken during the inspection. All maintenance records were up to date. Residents’ personal money was managed primarily by families, and in a small number of cases by solicitors. If residents needed any purchases the home paid for the purchases and invoiced the family. The majority of placements were funded by Manchester City Council. The home employed a finance administrator to record and audit financial transactions. Supervision was provided on a daily basis by qualified nurses, the care manager and the matron. The staff confirmed that qualified nurses were always available for advice and support. There was evidence of letters written by the matron to individual members of staff regarding specific concerns and actions the matron required of the staff, detailing areas of concern and how they were to be addressed and acted on. The home should develop a recording system for staff supervision, clearly identifying training and development needs and how and when these are met. Polefield Nursing Home DS0000021655.V313994.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 22 SCORING OF OUTCOMES This page summarises the assessment of the extent to which the National Minimum Standards for Care Homes for Older People 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 3 4 5 6 ENVIRONMENT Standard No Score 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 3 3 3 3 3 X HEALTH AND PERSONAL CARE Standard No Score 7 3 8 3 9 3 10 3 11 X DAILY LIFE AND SOCIAL ACTIVITIES Standard No Score 12 3 13 3 14 3 15 3 COMPLAINTS AND PROTECTION Standard No Score 16 3 17 3 18 3 3 3 3 3 X X 3 3 STAFFING Standard No Score 27 3 28 3 29 3 30 3 MANAGEMENT AND ADMINISTRATION Standard No 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 Score 3 X 3 3 3 3 3 3 Polefield Nursing Home DS0000021655.V313994.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 23 Are there any outstanding requirements from the last inspection? No STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS This section sets out the actions, which must be taken so that the registered person/s meets the Care Standards Act 2000, Care Homes Regulations 2001 and the National Minimum Standards. The Registered Provider(s) must comply with the given timescales. No. 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 3 Refer to Standard OP36 Good Practice Recommendations The home should develop a recording system for staff supervision, clearly identify training and development needs and how and when met. The home should identify another key holder for access to confidential information in the absence of the matron. The proprietor should continue to pursue plans to redevelop the bathrooms to provide more space for the use of hoists. OP37 OP21 Polefield Nursing Home DS0000021655.V313994.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 24 Commission for Social Care Inspection CSCI, Local office 9th Floor Oakland House Talbot Road Manchester M16 0PQ 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 Polefield Nursing Home DS0000021655.V313994.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 25 - 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!