Inspection on 11/09/07 for Premier Homes

This inspection was carried out on 11th September 2007.

CSCI has not published a star rating for this report, though using similar criteria we estimate that the report is Adequate. 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 no outstanding requirements from the previous inspection report, but made 3 statutory requirements (actions the home must comply with) as a result of this inspection.

Other inspections for this house

Premier Homes 13/02/06

Premier Homes 15/11/05

Premier Homes 20/01/05

Premier Homes 03/06/04

Premier Homes 17/02/04

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

CARE HOME ADULTS 18-65 Premier Homes 8 Premier Street Old Trafford Manchester M16 9ND Lead Inspector Helen Dempster Unannounced Inspection 11th September 2007 10:30 Premier Homes DS0000040225.V351072.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 Premier Homes DS0000040225.V351072.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. Premier Homes DS0000040225.V351072.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 3 SERVICE INFORMATION Name of service Premier Homes Address 8 Premier Street Old Trafford Manchester M16 9ND 0161 226 2270 0161 226 5903 mregan@premhomes.co.uk 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 Michelle Regan Mr John Patrick Andrew Regan Mrs Michelle Regan Care Home 15 Category(ies) of Mental disorder, excluding learning disability or registration, with number dementia (12), Mental Disorder, excluding of places learning disability or dementia - over 65 years of age (3) Premier Homes DS0000040225.V351072.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 4 SERVICE INFORMATION Conditions of registration: 1. 2. 3. The care home operates at numbers 4, 6, 8, 10 and 12 Premier Street and 29 Premier Street, which is situated opposite. A maximum of 12 service users will fall within the category of MD, mental disorder, excluding learning disability or dementia. 3 named service users will fall within the category of MD(E), mental disorder, excluding learning disability or dementia, and who are over the age of 65. These service users will be accommodated in Number 10 Premier Street. No more than 15 service users will be accommodated at any one time. On admission, services users will be adult i.e. aged between 18 and 65 years. Minimum staffing levels as specified in the Residential Forum Guidance in Care Homes for Younger Adults shall be maintained. 13th February 2006 4. 5. 6. Date of last inspection Brief Description of the Service: Premier Homes is comprised of five separate houses located in Premier Street, Old Trafford. The office for the service is located at 8 Premier St. The home is registered to provide care and accommodation to fifteen residents with mental health needs. Three residents live in each house and all the residents have a single room. Each house is linked to a central fire and security alarm system. The home is situated close to pubs, shops, the local Metro Link tram network and bus routes. Good relationships exist between the residents and their neighbours. The range of fees charged at the home is from £312.73 to £404.40. Premier Homes DS0000040225.V351072.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 5 SUMMARY This is an overview of what the inspector found during the inspection. This inspection was conducted by gathering lots of information about how well the home was meeting the National Minimum Standards for younger adults. This included the manager of the home filling in an Annual Quality Assurance Assessment (AQAA), which gave information about the residents, the staff, the premises and how the service is run. Three members of staff also completed questionnaires and eight residents’ questionnaires were completed with the help of one member of staff. (See Individual Needs and Choices for details). The inspection also included carrying out an unannounced site visit to the home on 11th September 2007, from 10:30am to 6:00pm. During this visit, lots of information about the way that the home was run was gathered and time was taken in talking with residents, the manager, the owner of the service and the staff team about the day-to-day care and what living at the home was like for the residents. Other information was also used to produce this report. This included reports about things and events affecting residents that the home’s staff had informed the Commission about. The main focus of the inspection process was to understand how the home was meeting the needs of the people who use the service and how the staff were supported to meet residents’ needs. The term preferred by the people consulted during the visit was “residents”. This term is, therefore, used throughout the report when referring to those people living at the home. What the service does well: Residents’ needs are assessed, so that staff had information, which allowed them to support residents in the way they preferred. One resident said, “I wanted to come here because everyone was nice to me” and another resident said of their visit to the home “I felt comfortable here”. Residents’ rights and choices were respected. Residents made positive comments about their choices and privacy which included “I feel respected here”, “they give me space and ask when they want to go in my room” and “if I want to be alone the staff understand”. Residents were encouraged to be as independent as possible, they had a holiday each year and day trips out and were supported to take part in activities, which they liked. Residents knew how to complain. One resident said, “I would speak to someone and tell the truth”. Residents were safeguarded by staff knowledge and training in the protection of vulnerable adults from abuse. Premier Homes DS0000040225.V351072.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 6 Staff had good access to information and training and were well supported. Residents were positive about the staff who were described as “very helpful” and “great”. Staff said that strengths of the service were that everyone was treated “ as an individual”, and that the service “gives that little bit extra” to residents. 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. Premier Homes DS0000040225.V351072.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 Premier Homes DS0000040225.V351072.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): 1 and 2. Quality in this outcome area is good. This judgement has been made using available evidence including a visit to this service. Potential residents are provided with relevant and accessible information before admission to allow them choice. Residents also benefit from their needs being assessed so that staff have information, which allows them to support residents in the way they prefer. EVIDENCE: The Statement of Purpose and Service User Guide contained detailed information about the service. In response to a recommendation made at the previous inspection, information about the service, including the code of practice, was available in several languages and the manager was using a website to translate documents. This, and the fact that the service employs staff from a wide range of nationalities, helps to meet the diverse communication needs of people referred to the service. This is good for the residents. The files of the two residents who had been admitted to the home most recently were seen and both the residents were spoken to. These residents had a care management assessment, and the manager had assessed the needs of Premier Homes DS0000040225.V351072.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 9 these residents prior to admission. This meant that staff had sufficient information to meet the residents’ needs in the way that they preferred. Prospective residents were able to visit the houses to stay for a meal and overnight stay before deciding if the service was right for them. The owner of the service said that the staff tried to get the best mix of people in each house. Residents were able to recall their admission procedure and said that they were happy with the house they lived in. A resident who completed a questionnaire said, “I wanted to come here because everyone was nice to me” and another resident who completed a questionnaire, said of their visit to the home “I felt comfortable here”. The service also has a three-month trial period where either party could decide that the arrangement was unsuitable. Premier Homes DS0000040225.V351072.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 10 Individual Needs and Choices The intended outcomes for Standards 6 – 10 are: 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. Service users know their assessed and changing needs and personal goals are reflected in their individual Plan. Service users make decisions about their lives with assistance as needed. Service users are consulted on, and participate in, all aspects of life in the home. Service users are supported to take risks as part of an independent lifestyle. Service users know that information about them is handled appropriately, and that their confidences are kept. The Commission considers Standards 6, 7 and 9 the key standards to be inspected. JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for the following standard(s): 6, 7 and 9. Quality in this outcome area is adequate. This judgement has been made using available evidence including a visit to this service. Residents benefited from having their rights and choices respected and from involvement in their care plan. However, the service needs to achieve consistency in thorough recording and review of care needs and risk assessments. EVIDENCE: The files of four of the residents, including the two residents who were admitted to the home most recently, were seen. Residents’ files were well organised and dividers made it easy to find information. Residents were able to make decisions, sometimes with guidance, about how they spent their day, what they had to eat, who to keep in contact with and what they wanted to wear. Residents’ lifestyle choices were recorded on their files. These included preferred bed times, how they liked to spend their time Premier Homes DS0000040225.V351072.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 11 and their skills. This included a resident who “prefers to spend time on (their) own” and was described as “very literate and numerate”. Daily records of the residents’ progress were also detailed. Eight of the residents were assisted by a member of staff to give their views about the service in questionnaires returned to the inspector. Although this was helpful, it was recommended that residents’ relatives and friends or an external advocate help residents with this task. Residents meetings were being held every two months and the minutes were recorded. Residents were involved in the agenda and this helped them to be involved in the running of the service. One resident chose to hold their own care plan and this resident, and other residents, talked about seeing their care manager regularly. The residents were aware that their file was held in a lockable cabinet in the office at number 8 Premier Street. Residents made positive comments about their choices and privacy which included “I feel respected here”, “they give me space and ask when they want to go in my room” and “if I want to be alone the staff understand”. Overall, residents’ files were detailed and contained the health and social care assessments received by the service when residents are admitted. Care plans described issues which residents needed support with. This included one resident who was said to “sometimes worry about things and needs lots of reassurance”. Some residents said that they did not always have the support they needed to plan meals and clean their room. (See Environment for details). For one resident, this need was detailed on the assessment completed before admission, but was not sufficiently detailed in the care plan. This person said that they had “good care” but that they “worry about it making me dependant”. Another resident praised the support and independence they had and concluded that they were “getting better all the time”. This resident said that they do some cleaning, but would like more help with cleaning. The need to audit care plans to ensure that all needs were consistently met was discussed. The need to review staff deployment to provide more one to one support for residents was also discussed. (See Staffing for details). Overall, residents’ risk profiles covered risks associated with their behaviour, forensic history and other issues and a risk management plan was in place. This included one resident who had detailed risk assessments concerning the risk of self harm and harm to others. However, one resident, who had historical behaviour which may put people at risk, did not have a full risk assessment and risk management plan to address this. Another resident had a risk assessment concerning an historical, high risk behaviour, which had been Premier Homes DS0000040225.V351072.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 12 reviewed in February 2006. However, this needed more frequent review. The need to audit and review all risk assessments was discussed. Premier Homes DS0000040225.V351072.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 13 Lifestyle The intended outcomes for Standards 11 - 17 are: 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. Service users have opportunities for personal development. Service users are able to take part in age, peer and culturally appropriate activities. Service users are part of the local community. Service users engage in appropriate leisure activities. Service users have appropriate personal, family and sexual relationships. Service users’ rights are respected and responsibilities recognised in their daily lives. Service users are offered a healthy diet and enjoy their meals and mealtimes. The Commission considers Standards 12, 13, 15, 16 and 17 the key standards to be inspected. JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for the following standard(s): 12, 13, 15, 16 and 17. Quality in this outcome area is good. This judgement has been made using available evidence including a visit to this service. Residents benefited from encouragement to be as independent as possible, to integrate in the community and to engage in activities which interest them. EVIDENCE: Residents engaged in activities depending on their needs, wishes and ability. One resident spoken with described their work at the Zion Centre. Other residents said that they did not want to attend a day centre, college or have a job. The owner of the service talked about the difficulties in motivating people. At the time of the visit, one resident was being enrolled at a local college, on a skills for life programme. Premier Homes DS0000040225.V351072.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 14 Overall, daily routines promoted independence and freedom in the community and residents were observed to go out to activities of their choice during the day. The residents remained in contact with their family at differing degrees, depending on their individual circumstances. This was recorded on their files and was discussed by residents. Residents care plans contained details of their hobbies, this included a resident who was said to plays guitar and walk and a resident who liked, ”art work, reading and listening to the radio”. These were completed in more detail for some than others. This included completing detailed lifestyle choices and self care ability sections of the care plan for some residents, but not for others. Care plans needed to be audited so that any gaps in information were addressed (See Individual Needs and Choices for details). The owner of the service said that residents are offered one weeks holiday each year at the cost of company. In 2007, residents went to Scotland and in 2006 they went to Wales. Day trips are also provided for residents. On the week prior to the visit, residents had been to Prestatyn and one resident said that they wanted to see Blackpool lights. This was being arranged. In-house activities at the service included bingo, karaoke and barbeques. Some residents went for walks and many enjoyed watching sporting events on television, including the Grand National and FA Cup. During the initial assessment of a resident, staff completed a list of foods that individual residents like and dislike. The residents had also completed questionaires about food preferences. Residents said that they made their own breakfast and staff prepared lunch and tea. The residents said that they could have alternatives if they didn’t like what was offered and if their choice of food was available in the house. Residents’ comments in questionnaires about food were positive. Many residents felt that having their meals cooked for them was one of the things they liked about the service. However, one resident said that they wanted the staff to “teach me things about the kitchen”. At the time of the visit, there was no fresh fruit or vegetables in any of the houses. The manager stated that a food order was due to be delivered. Premier Homes DS0000040225.V351072.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 15 Premier Homes DS0000040225.V351072.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 16 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 and 20. Quality in this outcome area is good. This judgement has been made using available evidence including a visit to this service. Overall, residents were supported to promote their health and take medication safely. More consistent audit to identify developments in meeting individual health needs and individual risks and preferences concerning medication administration would enhance this good practice. EVIDENCE: Overall, a detailed history of health care and mental health issues was held on the residents’ files and the details of medical appointments to see the psychiatrist, dentist, doctor and chiropodist were recorded. However, one resident’s file noted that whether the resident had received sight, hearing and dental tests was, “not known”. This file also noted that that this resident had not had a dental check “for a long time”. Files needed to be audited and residents encouraged to promote their own health, with the support of staff. Medication was held in a locked wall mounted cupboard in one of the houses. Premier Homes DS0000040225.V351072.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 17 Records were seen to have a high level of accuracy and there was clear evidence of consistent audit to maintain this level of accuracy. All residents who needed support to take their medicine came to the office for medication. The need to review this practice to meet individual needs and preferences was discussed. Those residents, who had been assessed as able to do so, administered their own medication. They received a supply of medication each week in a dosette box. One resident who was self -medicating, kept the medication in their bedroom, this resident said that they were happy with this arrangement and it was seen to be working well for this resident. Another resident who was selfadministering medication, which could put others at risk, said that they keep this medication in the kitchen. The manager was unaware of this arrangement and agreed to review it immediately. This resident’s care plan stated, “continues to manage (their) own medication effectively and recognises the benefits of taking (their) medication”. In December 2006, this resident’s review noted that there were no problems with self -medication and there had been no further reviews since this time. The need to consistently review residents’ needs concerning medication, and to complete a care plan which details their individual needs and compliance concerning medication, was discussed. At the time of the visit, one of the residents was in bed in the afternoon and said that they had pain in one leg. This resident said that if they have pain, they need to walk to the office, at number 8 Premier Street, to get painkillers. The manager explained that staff were trying to motivate this resident to walk more and arranged for this resident to see a doctor to establish the cause of the pain. Premier Homes DS0000040225.V351072.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 18 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): Quality in this outcome area is good. This judgement has been made using available evidence including a visit to this service. Staff knowledge and application of an appropriate complaints procedure and of the policy and procedure for the protection of vulnerable adults from abuse protected residents. EVIDENCE: The complaints procedure was displayed in the hallway of every house in the service. Residents said that they knew how to complain and one resident said, “I would speak to someone and tell the truth”. There was a complaints record in place, but no complaints had been recorded in the last 12 months. The policy on the Protection of Vulnerable Adults was readily available and staff had received training in this subject in June 2007. This training had been provided by Trafford Council. Premier Homes DS0000040225.V351072.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 19 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 and 30. Quality in this outcome area is adequate. This judgement has been made using available evidence including a visit to this service. Residents’ benefit from a homely premises and having a key to their room promotes privacy. However, some refurbishment, and increased staff support for residents to maintain a clean environment, would enhance their home. EVIDENCE: The residents live in homely properties within the same street, and within walking distance of the house in which the office is based. The houses were linked to a central fire and security alarm system. All the residents had their own bedroom which had been personalised with their own things. Residents said that they were happy with their room and said that they could spend as much or as little time in their room as they wanted. Residents held a key to their room to ensure privacy. The residents also had access to a communal lounge, kitchen diner and bathroom. Premier Homes DS0000040225.V351072.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 20 Some residents said that they did not always have the support they needed to clean their room. For one resident, this need was detailed on the assessment completed before admission, but was not sufficiently detailed in the care plan. The need to review staff deployment to provide more one to one support for residents was discussed. (See Staffing for details). Some of the lounges, bedrooms and bathrooms in the houses needed to be redecorated and refurbished. One resident said that the bathroom in one house was “not good” and that there had been “no seat on the toilet for 6 months”. The manager said that a rolling programme of refurbishment was planned, including the creation of a second bathroom in each house to allow residents choice. The need to provide the Commission with an audit of refurbishment, including timescales, was discussed. Premier Homes DS0000040225.V351072.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 21 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): 32, 34 and 35. Quality in this outcome area is adequate. This judgement has been made using available evidence including a visit to this service. Staff were well supported and had good access to training, but staff deployment was in need of review to increase the level of support to residents. EVIDENCE: The minimum staffing levels at the service at night were one member of staff on waking duty based at the office (8 Premier Street) from 8pm to 8am and a further member of staff on call in case of emergency. The minimum daytime staffing levels were three staff from 8am to 8pm, with more at meal times. The staff were deployed to support residents in the five houses. One resident said that staff come to their house twice daily for an hour at a time and that more help with cleaning would be welcome. Other residents said that they would like more help with meal planning and kitchen skills. One resident said of staff that, “sometimes they’re really busy, but I do have regular chats”. This was confirmed by a member of staff who said that staff “have time to talk and help and support people”. However, another member Premier Homes DS0000040225.V351072.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 22 of staff commented that the service needed to complete “more regular checks on staff to make sure they’re doing their job”. The need to review staff deployment to ensure that residents got the support they needed with maintaining hygiene, and increasing independence with meal planning and cooking was discussed. The staff confirmed that they had good access to training and that they were well supported. Staff files had copies of clear training plans, induction records and staff supervision records. All staff also have a “home pack, ”which contains key policies, induction information etc. This is good practice. The staff recruitment procedure includes staff sitting a written test and records of interviews were kept. The three staff files seen were well organised and indexed. Appropriate Criminal Records Bureau (CRB) checks were being made. Overall, two references were taken, but there were some unexplained gaps in employment histories and references were not consistently taken from the most recent employer. This included one member of staff who had been employed by the only previous employer since 1999, yet a reference had not been obtained from this employer. One staff application form did not state actual dates on the employment history. This was discussed with the owner of the service and the manager, who both agreed that they need to tighten up these aspects of recruitment procedure. Residents were positive about the staff who were described as “very helpful” and “great”. Three staff completed questionnaires about the service. All three staff were positive about the recruitment process, the induction process, training, and support from the manager. The only area that was felt to need improvement was communication. One member of staff said that information about residents was “not always passed” and that there was a need for “more communication in the general office”. Premier Homes DS0000040225.V351072.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 23 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, 39 and 42. Quality in this outcome area is good. This judgement has been made using available evidence including a visit to this service. Management practice ensured that residents’ views influenced the running of the home and that they were protected by good health and safety procedures. EVIDENCE: Staff said that strengths of the service were that everyone was treated “ as an individual”, and that the service “gives that little bit extra to service users”. One resident said that the service was the “best place”. This is good for the residents. The manager and the deputy manager were knowledgeable regarding their role and responsibilities and were seen to be open and approachable. Premier Homes DS0000040225.V351072.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 24 The home had policies and procedures which were regularly updated. Weekly health and safety inspections were being made and fire safety inspection and service reports were available. Residents’ views were sought during residents meetings and more informally on a one to one basis. A quality assurance survey had also been completed in March 07, which included sending questionnaires to residents, their relatives and social workers. The manager was about to collate the findings into a report There had been a recent incident which the service had not informed the Commission about. The need to report all significant incidents which impact on residents was discussed. Premier Homes DS0000040225.V351072.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 25 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 3 2 3 3 X 4 X 5 x INDIVIDUAL NEEDS AND CHOICES Standard No 6 7 8 9 10 Score CONCERNS AND COMPLAINTS Standard No Score 22 3 23 3 ENVIRONMENT Standard No Score 24 2 25 X 26 X 27 X 28 X 29 X 30 2 STAFFING Standard No Score 31 X 32 3 33 2 34 3 35 3 36 X CONDUCT AND MANAGEMENT OF THE HOME Standard No 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 Score 2 2 X 2 X LIFESTYLES Standard No Score 11 X 12 3 13 3 14 X 15 3 16 3 17 3 PERSONAL AND HEALTHCARE SUPPORT Standard No 18 19 20 21 Score 3 2 2 x 3 X 3 X X 3 x Premier Homes DS0000040225.V351072.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 26 No. Are there any outstanding requirements from the last inspection? STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS This section sets out the actions, which must be taken so that the registered person/s meets the Care Standards Act 2000, Care Homes Regulations 2001 and the National Minimum Standards. The Registered Provider(s) must comply with the given timescales. No. 1. Standard YA9 Regulation 13 (4) Requirement In order that risks to residents are minimised, risk assessments and risk management plans must be consistently undertaken according to residents’ needs and must be reviewed on a regular basis. To ensure that residents’ health is being promoted, assessments and care plans must consistently address individual’s needs to see practitioners, including dentists and opticians. The deployment of staff at the home must be reviewed in order that residents’ needs are consistently met. Timescale for action 30/10/07 2. YA19 12 30/10/07 3. YA33 18 30/10/07 RECOMMENDATIONS These recommendations relate to National Minimum Standards and are seen as good practice for the Registered Provider/s to consider carrying out. No. Refer to Good Practice Recommendations DS0000040225.V351072.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 27 Premier Homes 1 Standard YA6 It is strongly recommended that care plans are consistently audited to make sure that all individual resident’s needs are met. It is strongly recommended that residents who need help with the completion of questionnaires are supported by’ relatives and friends or an external advocate. It is strongly recommended that the arrangements whereby all residents who need support to take their medicine come to the office for medication is reviewed and that all residents have clear care plans concerning their individual need for support with medication. 2. YA7 3. YA20 Premier Homes DS0000040225.V351072.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 28 Commission for Social Care Inspection Central Registration 9th Floor Oakland House Talbot Road, Old Trafford Manchester M16 0PQ 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 Premier Homes DS0000040225.V351072.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 29 - 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!