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Please note that the information on this website is now out of date.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 02/10/07 for Portland Nursing Home

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

This inspection was carried out on 2nd October 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 found there to be outstanding requirements from the previous inspection report but made no statutory requirements on the home.

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

Residents and relatives were pleased with standards of care at the home. Residents said, "I`m well looked after", "nothing is too much trouble for the staff", and that staff were "kind", "patient" and "caring". Other comments included, "the care and support given is very good", "good humour is part and parcel of care provided" and that staff always had a "nice and polite attitude" to residents. It was observed that staff showed respect for residents` feelings, and a genuine warmth and affection. The home took pride in providing good quality, home cooked meals and there were many positive comments from residents and visitors to confirm this.

What has improved since the last inspection?

There had been many improvements made to the environment of the home since the last inspection. These included the installation of a shower, improvements to the patio area, bedrooms redecorated and new carpets provided, and new equipment to meet residents` needs, such as special beds and mattresses. The providers should now ensure that other planned improvements to the home are made within a reasonable timescale. Recruitment procedures had been reviewed and improved to ensure that residents were fully protected.

What the care home could do better:

As found at the last inspection, care plans were disorganised and lacking in detail so it was not clear that residents` needs and preferences were met. Staff training about care planning should be made a priority to address this issue. There were a few poor practices around the administration of medication that had not improved since the last inspection. This issue should be addressed without delay to ensure that residents are not put at risk.

CARE HOMES FOR OLDER PEOPLE Portland Nursing Home 8 Park Road Buxton Derbyshire SK17 6SG Lead Inspector Rose Veale Key Unannounced Inspection 2nd October 2007 10:00 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 Portland Nursing Home DS0000002071.V347380.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. Portland Nursing Home DS0000002071.V347380.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 3 SERVICE INFORMATION Name of service Portland Nursing Home Address 8 Park Road Buxton Derbyshire SK17 6SG 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) 01298 23040 01298 23040 Mr Joginder Singh Rai Catherine Mary Fogarty Care Home 40 Category(ies) of Old age, not falling within any other category registration, with number (40) of places Portland Nursing Home DS0000002071.V347380.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 4 SERVICE INFORMATION Conditions of registration: 1. 2. No one falling within category OP to be admitted into Portland Nursing Home when there are 40 persons of category OP already accommodated within the home The maximum number of persons to be accommodated within Portland Nursing Home is 40 24th April 2007 Date of last inspection Brief Description of the Service: Portland Nursing Home is situated near to the centre of Buxton where there is a wide range of amenities. The Victorian building has been extended to provide accommodation on three floors, accessed via a lift or staircases. The home is registered to provide personal care with nursing for up to 40 older people. There are a large number of shared bedrooms. None of the bedrooms have en-suite facilities. Three lounges, including dining facilities, are provided on the ground floor. A patio area is provided to the rear of the building, which can be accessed by residents from the larger lounge room. Information about the service, including CSCI reports, is available in the main entrance area of the home and on request from the manager or provider. Fees at the home range from £510 - £530 per week. The deputy manager provided this information during the inspection visit on 02/10/07. Portland Nursing Home DS0000002071.V347380.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 5 SUMMARY This is an overview of what the inspector found during the inspection. The inspection visit was unannounced and took place over 6 hours. The inspection visit focused on assessing compliance to requirements made at the previous inspection and on assessing all the key standards. There were 28 residents accommodated in the home on the day of the inspection visit, most of them assessed as needing nursing care. Residents, visitors and staff were spoken with during the visit. The deputy manager was available and helpful throughout the inspection visit. Some residents were unable to contribute directly to the inspection process because of communication difficulties, but they were observed during the visit to see how well their needs were met by staff. Records were examined, including care records, staff records, maintenance, and health and safety records. A tour of the building was carried out. The home’s Annual Quality Assurance Assessment (AQAA) had been completed by the manager and returned prior to the inspection and information from this has been included in the body of this report. Residents and / or their representatives had completed surveys and information from these has been included in this report. Following the last inspection in April 2007, a meeting was held with the providers to discuss the issues raised and they were given an improvement plan. The providers responded to the improvement plan within the given timescale. What the service does well: Residents and relatives were pleased with standards of care at the home. Residents said, “I’m well looked after”, “nothing is too much trouble for the staff”, and that staff were “kind”, “patient” and “caring”. Other comments included, “the care and support given is very good”, “good humour is part and parcel of care provided” and that staff always had a “nice and polite attitude” to residents. It was observed that staff showed respect for residents’ feelings, and a genuine warmth and affection. The home took pride in providing good quality, home cooked meals and there were many positive comments from residents and visitors to confirm this. Portland Nursing Home DS0000002071.V347380.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 6 What has improved since the last inspection? 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. The summary of this inspection report can be made available in other formats on request. Portland Nursing Home DS0000002071.V347380.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 Portland Nursing Home DS0000002071.V347380.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. JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for the following standard(s): 3 and 6 Quality in this outcome area is good. This judgement has been made using available evidence including a visit to this service. There was a good needs assessment process so that residents were confident the home could meet their needs. EVIDENCE: The care records of 4 residents were seen and all included assessment information obtained before the resident was admitted to the home. There was information from Social Services and hospital staff. There was also assessment information obtained on or soon after admission. This information was regularly updated. Some records had notes of care review meetings held and these indicated that residents were satisfied with the care and support provided at the home. Residents spoken with and those surveyed said that their needs were met at the home. Portland Nursing Home DS0000002071.V347380.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 9 Standard 6 did not apply to this service. Portland Nursing Home DS0000002071.V347380.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. JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for the following standard(s): 7, 8, 9 and 10 Quality in this outcome area is adequate. This judgement has been made using available evidence including a visit to this service. Although residents were generally satisfied with the care provided, there was an inconsistent approach to care planning and recording so it was not clear that residents’ needs and preferences were met. EVIDENCE: The 4 care records seen each had a care plan produced from the assessment information. All the care plans seen had been reviewed regularly, mostly every 2 months. There was evidence in some care plans of the involvement of residents / their representatives. There were risk assessments included in the care records. Although some improvements had been made since the last inspection, the care plans still lacked detail. For example, care plans about continence did not include information about the person’s usual routines, the type of pads used, or about ensuring their skin was properly cared for if they had been Portland Nursing Home DS0000002071.V347380.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 11 incontinent. The format of the care plans did not allow enough space for detailed information to be recorded. Information in the care plans was not well organised. For example, for a resident needing help with eating and drinking, there was information on two separate pages of the care plan under different headings. From discussion, it was clear that the deputy manager and manager were well aware that work was needed to improve care plans. The deputy manager said that it was planned to have training for staff about care plans, but this had not been organised. Records were seen of the input of other healthcare professionals, such as GP, tissue viability nurse, chiropodist, and care managers. Residents spoken with, and those who responded to the surveys, said their healthcare needs were met. There was evidence that residents were appropriately referred for advice and support when needed. For example, a resident with a wound that was not responding to treatment was referred to the tissue viability nurse. Since the last inspection, nurses at the home had undertaken training in ear care and ear syringing equipment had been provided. Residents and relatives spoken with and those responding to the surveys said that the care given at the home was good. Residents said, “I’m well looked after”, and “nothing is too much trouble for the staff”. A relative commented that “the care and support provided is very good”, and that the resident’s “particular needs and preferences have been incorporated into the daily routines”. Staff spoken with were knowledgeable about the care needs and preferences of residents. Staff were able to verbally give more detail than was included in the care plans about residents’ needs and how these were met. There was good evidence that residents were treated with respect and their dignity maintained. Residents described staff as “kind”, “patient” and “caring”. A relative commented that the resident’s “strong sense of dignity has been maintained and where appropriate her independence promoted”. Another relative said that staff always had a “nice and polite attitude” to residents. There were good interactions observed where staff showed respect for residents’ feelings, and a genuine warmth and affection. Since the last inspection, new residents to the home had been asked if they wanted a lock fitted to the bedroom door and this was documented in the care records. It was seen that in one shared room there was no privacy curtain in place. One resident commented that there should be separate toilets for men and women at the home. It was observed that there were three residents having breakfast in one bedroom where a fourth resident was having their hair styled Portland Nursing Home DS0000002071.V347380.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 12 by the hairdresser. It was not clear that the resident whose bedroom it was had consented to this. Medication in the home was securely stored and was administered by registered nurses. There were satisfactory records of receipt and disposal of medication. The Medication Administration Records (MARs) were seen for 4 residents. As found at the last inspection, there were gaps on the MARs instead of staff initials or a code letter, handwritten details of medication were not signed by the person writing them or countersigned by another person checking them as correct, handwritten entries did not include all the required details about the medication, and for medication prescribed ‘as required’ there was no information in the care plan about when this medication should be given. Requirements made at the last inspection to address these issues had therefore not been met and have been repeated in this report. Portland Nursing Home DS0000002071.V347380.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 13 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. 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 available evidence including a visit to this service. Improvements had been made so that the lifestyle at the home generally met the needs and expectations of residents. EVIDENCE: There was a range of activities offered to residents, including entertainers visiting the home, beauty treatments, games, and walks into the town. Residents spoken with and those responding to the surveys were generally satisfied with the activities provided. Residents spoken with said they particularly enjoyed a visiting entertainer who played the organ. A relative was pleased that staff encouraged the resident to join in with activities and also to help the domestic staff with dusting the bedroom. One resident was pleased with improvements made to the patio area as they could now make good use of it when the weather allowed. It was observed that care staff sat and chatted with residents when they had time. The deputy manager said that more efforts had been made since the last inspection to ensure residents with dementia were included in activities. Portland Nursing Home DS0000002071.V347380.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 14 Residents spoken with said they could get up and go to bed when they wanted to. One resident was pleased that they could get up early, as they had always been an early riser. Visitors spoken with said they were always made welcome at the home. A relative commented that, “visitors are warmly welcomed by staff”. Another relative said that, “the staff always make time to talk to us”. All the residents and visitors spoken with and those responding to the surveys were pleased with the meals provided. Residents said that there was a choice offered at mealtimes. When asked if they had enjoyed their lunch, one resident said, “I always do”. One resident was pleased that traditional meals were offered. Since the last inspection, as recommended in the last report, pureed food was not mixed together so that flavours and colours of individual foods were kept separate. The AQAA stated that the home provided “excellent home cooked food”, and that menus had been changed following discussions with residents. Lunchtime in the large lounge was observed. Most residents had their meal sitting in the lounge chairs with a small table in front of them. Some residents sat at the dining tables. There was a calm and pleasant atmosphere. Several residents needed assistance to eat and were helped by staff in a sensitive and unobtrusive way. There were good interactions observed between residents and staff. For example, for a resident with limited sight, a care assistant explained what was on their plate; a nurse sat with a group of residents at the table and encouraged conversation between them. The meals served looked appetising. There were no menus displayed in the dining areas. Residents were sitting at the dining tables in the large lounge for about 30 minutes before the meal was served. There were no drinks offered or on the table at the start of the meal, although water was offered by one member of staff during the meal and residents were offered a hot drink after the meal. Portland Nursing Home DS0000002071.V347380.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 15 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. JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for the following standard(s): 16 and 18 Quality in this outcome area is good. This judgement has been made using available evidence including a visit to this service. There were policies in place and good staff awareness so that residents were protected and their concerns effectively dealt with. EVIDENCE: Residents and visitors spoken with and those responding to the surveys said they knew how to make a complaint. One resident said they had raised concerns with staff and the manager and that action was taken to “put things right”. A relative commented, “issues raised are always acted upon”. Another relative said that the manager had listened and responded to minor problems. There was a complaints procedure in place. Records were kept of ‘minor’ complaints and the action taken to resolve them. No formal complaints had been made to the home or received by CSCI since the last inspection. The home also kept records of compliments received. There was a policy in place for safeguarding vulnerable adults and procedures to follow if abuse was suspected. Most staff had received training in safeguarding vulnerable adults. Staff spoken with were aware of the correct procedures to follow. Portland Nursing Home DS0000002071.V347380.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. JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for the following standard(s): 19 and 26 Quality in this outcome area is adequate. This judgement has been made using available evidence including a visit to this service. Progress had been made in improving the environment, providing better facilities and making a more safe and pleasant home for residents. EVIDENCE: Many improvements had been made to the home since the last inspection. The patio area outside the large lounge had been provided with tables, chairs, parasols, bird tables and flower tubs. A bathroom on the first floor had been fitted with a shower, and two new bath hoists had been provided to bathrooms on the first and second floors. Eight bedrooms had been redecorated and new carpets provided in 5 bedrooms. Two stand aid hoists had been provided. There were 6 new ‘hospital’ type beds and 2 ‘Alphaxcell’ pressure relief mattresses. Several doors had been fitted with devices to hold the door open and to let the door close when the fire alarms sounded. New televisions had Portland Nursing Home DS0000002071.V347380.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 17 been provided in two of the lounges. The office on the top floor had been refurbished and a new computer and printer provided. There was information from the AQAA and the deputy manager that the continuing refurbishment of the home was planned. This was to include: other bathrooms to be renovated, new furniture and carpets to be provided for the bedrooms, curtain tracks in all rooms and new curtains in some rooms, and more new beds. There were other items noted during the inspection visit that required attention: • the ramp to the patio area outside the large lounge had a hand rail to one side only • the bath on the first floor needing replacing as the enamel was very stained and was worn away in places • a curtain in the large lounge was ripped • a review of front door security was needed – on the day of the inspection visit it was easy for visitors to walk into the home without staff being aware. • there was no privacy curtain in one of the shared bedrooms All of the residents and visitors spoken with and those who responded to the surveys said that the home was usually clean and free from offensive odours. On the day of the inspection visit the home appeared clean and fresh throughout. The deputy manager said that another domestic assistant had recently been employed so that there would be cleaning carried out every day, including weekends. Portland Nursing Home DS0000002071.V347380.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. JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for the following standard(s): 27, 28, 29 and 30 Quality in this outcome area is adequate. This judgement has been made using available evidence including a visit to this service. Generally, there were enough competent and experienced staff to meet the needs of residents. EVIDENCE: Residents and visitors spoken with and those who responded to the surveys said that there were usually enough staff available when needed. From observation, there appeared to be sufficient staff on duty on the day of the inspection visit. It was seen from the staff rotas that staffing levels were reduced at weekends with one registered nurse working the morning shifts, instead of two registered nurses as on the morning shifts from Monday to Friday. It was not clear why there was a reduction in staffing at weekends as the needs of residents remained constant. Since the last inspection, recruitment practices had been changed and improved to ensure that all the required information was in place before new staff started work. The records of 3 staff were seen, including 2 members of staff recruited since the last inspection. The records seen included all the required information and documents, such as 2 written references and a Portland Nursing Home DS0000002071.V347380.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 19 Criminal Records Bureau (CRB) disclosure. The application form in one record had gaps in the employment history and it was not clear that the applicant had given a satisfactory explanation. The induction programme for new staff met with Skills For Care standards and had been completed for the two staff recruited since the last inspection. Training records and discussion with staff showed that most staff were up to date with required training, such as fire safety and manual handling. Some staff had received training to meet specific needs of residents, such as dementia awareness and continence. As noted in the Health and Personal Care section of this report, staff had not received training about care planning. The AQAA stated that 4 out of 21 care staff had already achieved National Vocational Qualification (NVQ) at Level 2, and that another 5 were working towards NVQ. This was below the National Minimum Standard of 50 of care staff with NVQ Level 2. Portland Nursing Home DS0000002071.V347380.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. JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for the following standard(s): 31, 33 and 38 Quality in this outcome area is good. This judgement has been made using available evidence including a visit to this service. The home was well managed and there were good systems in place so that the health, safety and welfare of residents was promoted and protected. EVIDENCE: Since the last inspection in April 2007, it was clear that the manager and deputy manager had worked together with the provider to comply with requirements made and to make improvements to the service. There were comments that the manager was “approachable”, “supportive”, and that “leadership is very good”. Residents, visitors and staff had confidence that the manager would listen to and act on their views and concerns. Portland Nursing Home DS0000002071.V347380.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 21 Since the last inspection, the post of senior care assistant had been introduced and there were two senior care assistants in place. The deputy manager said that the senior care assistants had been given extra responsibilities and this had helped with the workload of the manager and deputy manager and was working well. There was a quality assurance system in place and this had been further developed since the last inspection. Residents / relatives meetings were held approximately every 4 – 6 months. The deputy manager said that the meetings were not usually well attended as relatives said they would rather come directly to the manager with any concerns. Surveys were sent out to residents / their representatives approximately every 6 months. Information received from the manager following the inspection showed that action was taken as a result of any issues raised in the surveys. Relatives spoken with said they had received surveys recently. The views of residents were included in the Service User Guide. Information in the AQAA and from the deputy manager showed that maintenance and servicing of equipment in the home was up to date. Policies and procedures had all been reviewed in 2007. There was a recent satisfactory inspection report from the Fire and Rescue Service. Portland Nursing Home DS0000002071.V347380.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 X X 3 X X N/A HEALTH AND PERSONAL CARE Standard No Score 7 2 8 3 9 2 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 X 18 3 2 X X X X X X 3 STAFFING Standard No Score 27 3 28 2 29 3 30 2 MANAGEMENT AND ADMINISTRATION Standard No 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 Score 3 X 3 X X X X 3 Portland Nursing Home DS0000002071.V347380.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 23 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 OP7 Regulation 15(1) Requirement All residents must have a detailed care plan covering all of their assessed needs. This will ensure that they receive person centred support that meets their needs. Original timescale 31/05/07 Where instructions are hand written on Medication Administration Records, (MARs), the details on the original prescription must be reproduced. This will ensure that residents receive the correct levels of medication. Original timescale 11/05/07 When medication is administered to residents it must be clearly recorded. This will ensure that residents receive the correct levels of medication. Original timescale 11/05/07 Where medication is prescribed ‘as required’, the care plan must include details of when and why the medication is to be given. This will ensure that medication is given as intended by the doctor who prescribed it. DS0000002071.V347380.R01.S.doc Timescale for action 30/11/07 2 OP9 13(2) 19/10/07 3 OP9 13(2) 19/10/07 4 OP9 13(2) 19/10/07 Portland Nursing Home Version 5.2 Page 24 5 OP19 13(4) 6 OP19 16(2)(j) 7 OP19 13(4)(c) 8 OP30 18(1)(c) A suitable hand rail must be fitted to both sides of the ramp from the large lounge to the patio area. This will reduce the risk of falling for residents using the ramp. The bath in the first floor bathroom must be repaired or replaced as the enamel coating is worn away and the bath cannot be effectively and hygienically cleaned. The security arrangements for entry of visitors to the home must be reviewed to ensure that residents are not placed at risk. Staff must have training appropriate to the work they are to perform: specifically, training about care planning to ensure that residents’ needs are fully met. 30/11/07 31/12/07 19/10/07 31/12/07 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 4 Refer to Standard OP9 OP10 OP15 OP27 Good Practice Recommendations Handwritten entries in MARs should be signed by the person making the entry and countersigned by another person who has checked the entry is correct. There should be curtains or screens provided in shared rooms so that residents’ privacy is maintained. Menus should be displayed in the dining areas so that residents / their representatives know what choice of food is available. There should be a review of staffing levels at weekends, in consultation with residents / their representatives and staff to ensure that there are always enough staff on duty to meet residents’ needs. Gaps in the employment history of applicants should be explored and the explanation documented to ensure a DS0000002071.V347380.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 25 5 OP29 Portland Nursing Home more robust recruitment procedure. Portland Nursing Home DS0000002071.V347380.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 26 Commission for Social Care Inspection Derbyshire Area Office Cardinal Square Nottingham Road Derby DE1 3QT 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 Portland Nursing Home DS0000002071.V347380.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 27 - Please note that this information is included on www.bestcarehome.co.uk under license from the regulator. Re-publishing this information is in breach of the terms of use of that website. Discrete codes and changes have been inserted throughout the textual data shown on the site that will provide incontrovertable proof of copying in the event this information is re-published on other websites. The policy of www.bestcarehome.co.uk is to use all legal avenues to pursue such offenders, including recovery of costs. You have been warned!