Inspection on 13/06/07 for Prior Bank House

This inspection was carried out on 13th June 2007.

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

The inspector made no statutory requirements on the home as a result of this inspection and there were no outstanding actions from the previous inspection report.

Other inspections for this house

Prior Bank House 14/03/06

Prior Bank House 01/02/05

Prior Bank House 07/09/04

Similar services:

Abbey The

Snydale Care Home

Hawkhills

Larchfield Manor

Beeches The - North Yorkshire County Council

The Grove Waltham

Carentan House

Ravensworth Lodge

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

CARE HOMES FOR OLDER PEOPLE Prior Bank House 74 Cherry Tree Road Sheffield South Yorkshire S11 9AB Lead Inspector Sue Stephens Key Unannounced Inspection 13th June 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 Prior Bank House DS0000003002.V299678.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. Prior Bank House DS0000003002.V299678.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 3 SERVICE INFORMATION Name of service Prior Bank House Address 74 Cherry Tree Road Sheffield South Yorkshire S11 9AB 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) 0114 255 2115 0114 255 0477 none sharon.blackwell@anchor.org Anchor Trust Mrs Denise Walker Care Home 32 Category(ies) of Old age, not falling within any other category registration, with number (32) of places Prior Bank House DS0000003002.V299678.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 4 SERVICE INFORMATION Conditions of registration: Date of last inspection 14th March 2006 Brief Description of the Service: Prior Bank House provides personal care for a maximum of thirty-two older people. It is part of a group of care homes operated by Anchor Trust. Prior Bank House is an adapted Victorian house surrounded by mature garden and woodland. It is situated in the residential area of Nether Edge in Sheffield. On the ground floor there are communal areas such as lounges, dining areas and a conservatory. In addition there are service areas and fourteen bedrooms. On the first floor are the remaining eighteen bedrooms. There is a lift. The manager provided the information about the homes fees and charges on 12 March 2007. Fees range from £308 to £460 per week. There are additional charges for hairdressing, chiropody, toiletries, papers and magazines. Prospective residents and their families can get information about Prior Bank by contacting the manager. The home will also provide a copy of the statement of purpose and the latest inspection report. Prior Bank House DS0000003002.V299678.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 5 SUMMARY This is an overview of what the inspector found during the inspection. This visit was unannounced; it took place between 10:00 am and 16:00pm. The inspector sought the views of people who live at the home, and spent time observing other people who received support from staff. She interviewed three members of staff and one relative. Denise Walker, the registered manager, was on leave at the time of the visit. The team leader assisted with the inspection. During the visit the inspector looked at the environment, and made observations on the staffs’ manner and attitude towards people. She checked samples of documents that related to peoples’ care and safety. These included three assessments and care plans, medication records, and staff recruitment files. The inspector looked at other information before visiting the home, this included evidence from the last random inspection and surveys and a pre inspection questionnaire supplied by the manager. The inspector received views from people who completed the following surveys: Four surveys for people who live at the home Two staff surveys. This was a key inspection and the inspector checked all the key standards. The inspector would like to thank the people who live at the home, the team leader and staff for their warm welcome, help and contribution to this inspection. What the service does well: People said about the home, “The staff are kind”, “It is always clean”, “perfect” and “I never thought I would finish up in such a lovely place”. People have good assessments and this makes sure the home can meet their needs. This includes people’s diverse needs, their rights, choices, preferences and events and achievements throughout their lives. Prior Bank House DS0000003002.V299678.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 6 People have good care plans; these give staff good information about how to give people the right care and support. People get support to access health care services; and the home has good medication systems. People said they were very satisfied that staff treat them with dignity and respect, and they respect people’s privacy. People said they were happy with their daily routines and that the home offered them enough choices of activities and leisure. These included coffee mornings, coach trips and entertainers. The home offered people good nutritious food. People said the food was tasty and enjoyable. The dining room was set out in an inviting way; it had a relaxed and sociable atmosphere. People said they felt they could raise concerns and the home would take action to resolve them. The home trained staff to know what to do if someone was at risk of harm or abuse. People said they were highly satisfied with the homes environment. The décor was homely and inviting, and furniture was of good quality and comfortable. People referred to their rooms as flats, these were very personalised. People made a lot of comments about how fresh and clean and tidy the home was. The home took care over people’s laundry. Staff were very positive and motivated. People and relatives had a lot of positive comments about the staff. They said they were “kind”, “caring” and “like family to me”. Staff had good training and support. The home was very organised and well managed. People said they were highly satisfied with the care and support at the home. What has improved since the last inspection? Prior Bank House DS0000003002.V299678.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 7 The home had mended the hoist and bathrooms were accessible to people who wished to use them. New staff had formal inductions and the induction process that staff were competent and had the right skills to care for and support people. Staff the managers had safe working practice training (for example they had moving and handling, fire and health and safety training). This helps to protect people’s health, safety and welfare. 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. Prior Bank House DS0000003002.V299678.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 8 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 Prior Bank House DS0000003002.V299678.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 9 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): 3. The home did not provide intermediate care. People who use the service experience excellent quality outcomes in this area. We have made this judgment using a range of evidence, including a visit to this service. People who live at the home have their needs assessed, and staff review this so that they can continue to meet people’s changing needs. The assessment process allows people to explain their preferred life style and needs. EVIDENCE: One person said about moving in to the home, “I have no regrets, I am happy”. People had assessments before they came to live at Prior Bank. This helped make sure the home understood their needs and confirm that they were able to care for them. Prior Bank House DS0000003002.V299678.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 10 The manager, deputy and team leader assessed people’s needs, this continued after people moved in; this was good practice because it helped the home identify people’s changing needs and preferences. Anchor Trust had introduced a new improved assessment format as part of a “life style care plan”. This looked very carefully at people’s lives and was an excellent tool to help give people, and their families, the opportunity to give the home a real picture of the person’s lifestyle and preferences. In turn this enables the home to offer good quality care based on understanding the individual needs of the person. The homes assessments looked at people’s diverse needs. (For example people’s, religion, culture, age and gender). Prior Bank House DS0000003002.V299678.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 11 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, 10 and 11. People who use the service experience good quality outcomes in this area. We have made this judgment using a range of evidence, including a visit to this service. People are very satisfied with their care and support. They have good care plans, they have good health care support and staff treat people with dignity and respect. EVIDENCE: Anchor Trust had introduced an improved care plan format. The new care plans covered in very good detail peoples needs, preferences, risks and social history. This gave the staff team excellent information so that they could provide consistent care and support to people in a way the person prefers. The home was in the process of providing the new care plans to all people. Prior Bank House DS0000003002.V299678.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 12 The inspector checked both new and original formats. These covered people’s needs well and included people’s health needs and guidance given by clinical professionals. Staff had carried out regular reviews on the care plans. This helps the home identify people’s changing needs. One relative confirmed that the home invited them to care reviews to discuss their family members health and progress. They said they found this very helpful. People at the home, and a relative, confirmed that the home was very good at monitoring people’s health care needs. People said they could see a G.P when they needed and had support from staff to attend hospital appointments when they needed. Staff followed very good medication procedures. Staff had up to date training, the team leader carried out competency checks on staff; and a pharmacist carried out regular audits. The storage was clean and tidy and the records were up to date and in order. People spoke very highly about the staff and their manner. People said the staff always spoke to them in a dignified manner and respected their privacy. One person said, “I never hear them raise their voice or get impatient”. Everyone who the inspector spoke to passed comments on the staff teams positive manner and approach. The inspector noted staff were very respectful about entering peoples flats; they always knocked and announced themselves. The team leader said although staff were not involved in palliative care at the moment, the home still planned to give staff training. The team leader had identified training and was planning dates for staff to attend. This was a previous requirement and the inspector recommends that staff still do the training as soon as possible. This will help make sure people who need end of life care have good quality support from the staff team. Prior Bank House DS0000003002.V299678.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 at least once during a 12 month period. JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for the following standard(s): 12, 13, 14 and 15. People who use the service experience good quality outcomes in this area. We have made this judgment using a range of evidence, including a visit to this service. People are satisfied with their daily routines. The home provides good nutritious meals in a pleasant setting. EVIDENCE: People said they could follow the daily routines they preferred. Staff respected people’s wishes to stay in their flats when they wanted; and they could get up and retire to bed when they wanted. People said they were satisfied with the activities and entertainment provided at the home. One relative described it as “very good”. On the day the inspector visited people were enjoying a coffee morning with cakes and a raffle; relatives and friends also attended. The atmosphere was lively and entertaining, people said they liked the coffee morning especially. Prior Bank House DS0000003002.V299678.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 14 Other examples of activities included, Religious worship Residents meetings Day trips (people said they enjoyed a trip to Cleethorpes the week before) Music evenings with outside entertainer Strawberry teas Summer fair. People said they were very satisfied with their meals. At mealtimes staff offered people a choice of two options, they also had a choice of puddings. One person said, “I’ve never had a meal to complain about, they are very good”. The team leader said the home catered for people who needed special diets. The dining room was prepared in a very tasteful manner with fresh flowers on each table. It was evident that staff took pride in making sure the room looked nice and inviting before people came for their meals. This added to a pleasant and relaxed atmosphere for people to enjoy their meals in. People could eat meals in their rooms if they wished. Prior Bank House DS0000003002.V299678.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 inspected at least once during a 12 month period. JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for the following standard(s): 16 and 18. People who use the service experience good quality outcomes in this area. We have made this judgment using a range of evidence, including a visit to this service. People can express their concerns and complaints. The homes training and safeguarding policies help protect people from harm or abuse. The home can improve this by making sure staff have access to Local Authority policies and procedures. EVIDENCE: People said they felt comfortable that they could raise a concern if they needed to. One person said they saw the deputy manager and team leader quite regularly, so could speak to them. A person who had lived at the home for some time, and a relative, both confirmed that they felt confident staff and managers would listen and take action if they said they were worried about anything. The home had no pending complaints. The home was not dealing with any adult protection issues. Staff had training, knew how to identify and report poor practice. Prior Bank House DS0000003002.V299678.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 16 Staff had access to Anchor Trust adult protection (safeguarding adults) policies and procedures. However, the home did not have the local authority procedures available. This could lead to delays and confusion if the managers find they have to deal with an allegation. The local authority policies include contact numbers and explain what action the authority will take. The home needs this information to make sure the home follows the correct procedures and works with the local authority if they are concerned about someone’s welfare. Prior Bank House DS0000003002.V299678.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 17 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, 23 and 26. People who use the service experience excellent quality outcomes in this area. We have made this judgment using a range of evidence, including a visit to this service. People live in a comfortable, homely environment, which meets their needs. The staff and managers take pride in making the home comfortable and clean. EVIDENCE: People said they were very happy with the homes environment. They said the furniture and furnishings were comfortable and the home was clean. The home was decorated in a light, spacious and homely manner. There were personal touches such as pictures in memory of people; flowers and mirrors that gave the home a welcome feeling. Prior Bank House DS0000003002.V299678.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 18 Everyone the inspector spoke to said how nice and clean the home was. The relative said it was always clean and always smelt fresh. The home had a very dedicated housekeeping team. The team were positive and organised in their approach. One person said, “They always ask me if it is alright to come in and clean my flat”. Where flats were vacant the team set these up as show rooms for potential residents and their families to see. And they included welcome packs such as toiletries. The home supported people to furnish the room as they wished, and encouraged people to bring in their own furniture and personal possessions. As a result people had very personalised flats. People said about the home, “This is my home”, “You never see it dirty or untidy” and “It is so clean and comfortable”, “It’s perfect, it’s my home”. The housekeeper said “Each flat is an individual home for the residents, we keep a ledger so that we know how people like their flats cleaning, and how often”. People had clean and well-laundered clothes. It was evident staff took care and consideration over people’s clothes. And the relative said they were satisfied with the laundry service. Prior Bank House DS0000003002.V299678.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 19 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. People who use the service experience good quality outcomes in this area. We have made this judgment using a range of evidence, including a visit to this service. People had good care and support from a committed and well-trained staff team. However, sometimes the home operated on reduced staff levels and this could put people’s comfort and safety at risk. EVIDENCE: People said they had good support and care from the staff team, they made very positive comments that included, “The carers are kind”, “staff are always pleasant” and “Staff are like my family”. A relative said about the staff, “Every single person has been so friendly”, “You never hear staff get mad with anyone”. On the last inspection (March 2006) the inspector issued the home with an immediate requirement to review the staffing numbers in light of peoples increasing dependency. In the main people said staff were available when they needed them. However one person said she explains to other people at the home that staff can’t Prior Bank House DS0000003002.V299678.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 20 always be available because they are busy. She said this was because some people object when staff were not available. Another resident commented that they had not had their usual bath because the staff were down in numbers. The inspector spoke to a number of staff about the staffing levels. They confirmed that on occasions they have had to work below the recommended levels. They said this is very hard work, especially in an afternoon because care staff also have to do some kitchen duties. Staff confirmed that on a normal daytime shift (one senior, three carers) they could cope well. It was evident that the home did not have sufficient stand by staff (bank or agency) to enable the home to operate on adequate levels at all times. Sixty two and a half percent of staff had a National Vocational Qualification in care; this was above the National Minimum Standards recommended 50 of care staff. This was a very good achievement and helps the staff team ensure they give people safe and consistent care and support. In the main the homes recruitment procedures were good, and the organisation made suitable checks to make sure the home employed the right staff for people. However, on one recruitment record the home had not recorded in sufficient detail the reasons for employment gaps. The home’s information confirmed staff had criminal record bureau checks but did not confirm if they were enhanced checks. This is important because all staff in care homes must have enhanced checks rather than a standard check. The enhanced check is designed to minimise the risk of the home employing staff who are not appropriate. The home was unable to evidence that they did this. The home had good training records. These show that staff had regular training on conditions and issues associated with the people they supported. For example in the past year staff had attended training such as oral care, care plans, rights and responsibilities, and dementia care. The team leader said all staff will have training on the new care plan system; and included in this is training and guidance on equality and diversity issues. For example about peoples race, religion, rights and choices. Prior Bank House DS0000003002.V299678.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 21 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, 35 and 38. People who use the service experience good quality outcomes in this area. We have made this judgment using a range of evidence, including a visit to this service. People receive good care from a well managed home. However, organisations quality assurance system is not always effective in safeguarding people’s safety and wellbeing. EVIDENCE: The registered manager was not available during this visit. The manager had the relevant qualifications and experience to manage the home. She had good skills and ran the home well; this was evident from the satisfaction people at the home expressed about their care and support. Staff said the manager was “approachable and put good ideas into practice”. Prior Bank House DS0000003002.V299678.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 22 In the main the home had good quality assurance systems in place. For example the home carried out self-assessments and held local procedures specific to the home. The manager and staff had used the quality assurance systems to inform Anchor Trust about issues that affect people’s safety and quality of care. The home had informed the organisation over a period of time about uneven flags outside the home leading to the garden. Anchor Trust had failed to respond to the homes report. And as a result two people who live at the home tripped and sustained injuries. The team leader confirmed that Anchor trust had now taken action to make the path safe. This incident was disappointing and let down the otherwise excellent ethos of the home. The home had also informed Anchor Trust, over a period of time, that they need a second carpet cleaner. The home keep standards of hygiene high, however, staff said without a second cleaner they could not always clean spills and accidents up immediately. The Trust had not responded to staff requests. In these two situations the homes quality assurance system has not been effective. The inspector checked a sample of three people’s finance records. In the main these were up to date and in order. People could deposit and withdraw money and valuables, and the home kept them safe. The home kept a record and provided receipts to people and their families of all transactions. Where there was a discrepancy (for example someone had a receipt missing) the team leader confirmed she had followed this up with the staff concerned; and she retrieved the receipt. The home had good systems in place to monitor their health and safety practices. The team leader said she managed this area, and made sure staff training was up to date. The home had maintenance personnel who also carried out health and safety checks. Prior Bank House DS0000003002.V299678.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 23 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 4 X X N/A HEALTH AND PERSONAL CARE Standard No Score 7 3 8 3 9 3 10 4 11 2 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 4 X X X 4 3 3 4 STAFFING Standard No Score 27 2 28 4 29 2 30 3 MANAGEMENT AND ADMINISTRATION Standard No 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 Score 3 X 2 X 3 X X 2 Prior Bank House DS0000003002.V299678.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 24 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. 1. Standard OP27 Regulation 18.1 (a) Requirement So that the home continues to meet people’s need in a safe way the home must make sure it provides suitable minimum staffing levels at all times. The home should monitor this in their monthly visit reports so that they can evidence progress and take action on continuing problems. 2. OP29 19.1 (b) schedule 2 The home must ensure that staff have the correct level of criminal record bureau check. And have suitable details about employment gaps. The home must be able to provide evidence that these checks are in place. 3. OP33 24. The organisation must investigate why their quality assurance system failed to take action on reported risks to people at the home. 31/07/07 31/07/07 Timescale for action 31/07/07 Prior Bank House DS0000003002.V299678.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 25 4. OP38 13.4 (a) To make sure people are safe to walk out into the garden the home must repair the path. This must be done in a timely manner. 31/07/07 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 Refer to Standard OP11 Good Practice Recommendations The care staff should have training in palliative care, practical assistance and bereavement counselling so that they are able to deal with death and dying of service users. (Carried forward from the previous requirement). This is a recommendation because staff were not providing palliative at the time of the visit. However the team leader confirmed they may do again in the future. 2 OP18 It is strongly advised that the home has Local Authority adult protection procedures (safeguarding adults) available to staff. And staff should be aware of their content. Prior Bank House DS0000003002.V299678.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 26 Commission for Social Care Inspection Sheffield Area Office Ground Floor, Unit 3 Waterside Court Bold Street Sheffield S9 2LR 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 Prior Bank House DS0000003002.V299678.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!