Inspection on 13/06/07 for Quarry Hill Resource Centre

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 Excellent. 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

Quarry Hill Resource Centre 04/02/06

Quarry Hill Resource Centre 19/09/05

Quarry Hill Resource Centre 01/03/05

Quarry Hill Resource Centre 22/09/04

Similar services:

Larch Avenue

Alderson Road 12

Cranworth Close Registered Care Home

The Cornerstone

John Street Nursing Home

Pennine Camphill

Whitwood House

Whitwood Hall

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

CARE HOME ADULTS 18-65 Quarry Hill Resource Centre 58 Quarry Hill Road Wath Upon Dearne Rotherham South Yorkshire S63 7TD Lead Inspector Ramchand Samachetty Unannounced Inspection 13th June 2007 11:00 DS0000033497.V330836.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 DS0000033497.V330836.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. DS0000033497.V330836.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 3 SERVICE INFORMATION Name of service Quarry Hill Resource Centre Address 58 Quarry Hill Road Wath Upon Dearne Rotherham South Yorkshire S63 7TD 01709 873404 NONE ss.Quarryhill@rotherham.gov.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) Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council (LDS) Christine Corton Care Home 6 Category(ies) of Learning disability (6) registration, with number of places DS0000033497.V330836.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 4 SERVICE INFORMATION Conditions of registration: Date of last inspection 4th February 2006 Brief Description of the Service: Quarry Hill Resource Centre is a six- bedded residential facility, which provides care and support to younger adults with a learning disability. It is owned by Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council and is managed jointly with the local health services, under the ‘Learning Disability Service’. Quarry Hill is situated in a residential area of Wath-Upon-Dearne, with access to public transport, local shops, social and recreational facilities. It is a twostorey house with six bedrooms, one of which is on the ground floor. Access to the top floor is through the stairs. There is a lounge, dining room and a kitchen, on the ground floor. There are garden areas in front and at the back of the house. The garden at the back and the patio area are specially designed and adapted for service users with sensory impairments. There is a small parking area at the front of the house. The service has produced a statement of purpose and a service user guide. The fees charged for respite care was £907.26 per night, as at June 2007. People who use the service were financially assessed in order to determine how much they would pay. Further information can be obtained from the manager of the service. DS0000033497.V330836.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 5 SUMMARY This is an overview of what the inspector found during the inspection. This key unannounced inspection was carried out on 13 June 2007, starting at 11.00 hours and finished at 17.30 hours. The service is registered to provide respite care to up to 6 younger adults with Learning Disabilities. There were six people receiving respite care at the time of this inspection. The registered manager was present for most of the time of this inspection. All the key national minimum standards for “Care Homes For Adults 18-65” were assessed. Progress in meeting requirements made at the last inspection (April 2006) was also reviewed. The inspection included a tour of the Centre, examination of care documents and other records, including those pertaining to staff recruitment and deployment, complaints, maintenance of equipment and systems, conversations with people who use the service and staff, including the registered manager. The care of one person using the service was tracked and some aspects of care and support being provided were observed. As part of the pre-inspection planning, the completed inspection questionnaire submitted by the manager and other documents, including comment cards received from people who use the service and their relatives, staff and other professionals, were considered. The views and comments expressed in them have been included in this report. The inspector would like to thank all the people using the service, their relatives and staff who helped with this inspection. What the service does well: People who use the service and their relatives were very satisfied with the care and support that is provided to them. The respite service is highly valued by both people using it and their carers as it gives them a much-needed rest when they need it. Staff provide the service in a way, which ensures that the rights of people who use it, are respected, safeguarded and promoted. People with a learning disability are treated as equal citizens. The staff team maintain excellent communication with people who use the service and their relatives. This helps staff in providing the care and support in the way people who use the service prefer. Staff training and development is well organised and provided for the benefit of people who use the service. DS0000033497.V330836.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. DS0000033497.V330836.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 DS0000033497.V330836.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. People who use the service experience good quality outcomes in this area. We have made this judgement using a range of evidence, including a visit to the service. People using the service and those who wanted to use it, were given appropriate information. This helped them to understand the service and to benefit from it. The needs of each person using the service were appropriately assessed before their admission. This helped to make sure that their needs could be met before they were offered the service. EVIDENCE: The statement of purpose and service user guide had been revised to include all the necessary information, and in particular the criteria for emergency admission. Both documents were written in plain English and had some pictures to help people with a learning disability to understand them. Copies of these documents were made available to people who use the respite service and their relatives. Staff said that these documents were also given to people who were referred to the service as first time users of the service. The care records of two persons, who were receiving respite care on the day of this inspection, were checked. They had copies of needs assessment, which DS0000033497.V330836.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 9 were carried out by the placing social workers, prior to their admission to the centre. It was also noted that staff continued to review the assessments of people who were regular users of the service, at each of their respite stays. These reviews of individual assessments were appropriately recorded. This helped staff to update themselves on any change in the needs of people between their respite stays. DS0000033497.V330836.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. People who use the service experience good quality outcomes in this area. We have made this judgement using a range of evidence, including a visit to the service. Most people who use the service and their relatives were very satisfied with the care and support that staff were providing at the Centre. Care plans were appropriately developed and took into consideration the capabilities, preferences and risks of each individual. This helped to make sure that people using the service could enjoy as good a quality of life as possible. EVIDENCE: The care records of two people, who were using the service, were checked. They contained individual plans of care, which were based on their assessed needs. They also addressed their aims, goals and aspirations. The care plans were appropriately set out, with actions to be taken to meet care and support needs. Staff explained that they had used a “person-centred planning” approach in developing the care plans by involving the person using DS0000033497.V330836.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 11 the service, their relatives and advocates. Care plans were regularly reviewed to make sure the care being provided was still meeting identified needs. Risks that people using the service, faced in their daily activities, were assessed and actions to manage them were clearly set out in the care plans. This allowed people who use the service to take reasonable risks in their daily living activities in order to lead as normal a life as possible. One of the people using the service said that he could “make his own toast” here, but not when he was at home, where his parents would do that for him. Staff explained that he had been coached and risk assessed in undertaking this task. However, he still requires supervision when he makes his toasts. People who were in for respite care, said that they were “very happy with the care and support” they were receiving. They were encouraged and supported in making decisions on range of issues regarding their activities of daily living. One of the people using the service told staff that he had decided to rest in his bedroom and would come down for his dinner later on. Staff were happy to acknowledge his decision and respected it. DS0000033497.V330836.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 12 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, 14, 15, 16 and 17. People who use the service experience excellent quality outcomes in this area. We have made this judgement using a range of evidence, including a visit to the service. People who use the service have excellent opportunities to take part in a range of fulfilling and meaningful activities, which enabled them to lead stimulating lives. Staff were keen to promote the rights of people who use the service and thus making sure they were treated as equal citizens. EVIDENCE: Most of the people who use the service attend day services in the community on weekdays. Staff explained that people who use day centres were happier now because they were able to spend their day at different places rather than attend the same day centre building. People who were receiving respite care DS0000033497.V330836.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 13 said that on one occasion they had spent the day at a church hall, enjoying a range of activities there. Some people had alternative daytime activities, which included attending college, part time employment and sports. One person said that she had been to college where she was learning to paint and she was enjoying the course. Another person said that he would always have something to do after coming back from the daycentre. He was attending a leisure centre for weight training and for playing snooker. He was also engaged in gardening for one day a week. Staff were observed to spend time on a one to one basis with the people receiving respite care at the time of the inspection. Routines appeared to be flexible and people using the service could choose how they spend their free time and decide for example, when to have their meals and when to retire to bed. Some people using the service were observed, on their return from the day centres, getting their meals ready with the support of staff. They said that they had chosen the food they like. It was noted that in some instances staff were preparing to accompany people using the service and to support them in undertaking their evening leisure activities. People using the service also said that they were able to make friends with other people who attend day services or who they meet socially. One person said that he was in a relationship with a person he had met at a day centre. He said that staff was giving him appropriate support to maintain this relationship. In discussion, it was noted that the service had not yet developed a policy on sexuality, which was needed so that staff could receive relevant guidance on this matter. People using the service said that staff were “very good” and that they were treated in a friendly and courteous way. The people who were in respite care seemed relaxed in the company of staff and their interactions were friendly. Staff spoken to said that they considered themselves as advocates of the people who use the service. They would make sure that their right to independence, privacy and dignity were safeguarded and promoted at all times. DS0000033497.V330836.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 14 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. People who use the service experience good quality outcomes in this area. We have made this judgement using a range of evidence, including a visit to the service. The personal and health care needs of people who use the service were well met and this ensured their continued good health and wellbeing. People using the service and their relatives were very satisfied with the standard of service being provided. EVIDENCE: Individual care plans and care records of people using the service showed that care and support was provided to them in the way they preferred. Staff explained that such preferences were obtained from people who use the service and their relatives at the start of each respite stay. Care plans also referred to action that was needed in order to maintain and promote the skills of people using the service. Routines at the centre were flexible and took into account the daily duties that people in respite care had to undertake. This included attendance at the day centres and paid work. DS0000033497.V330836.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 15 Care plans checked showed that all aspects of needs were considered. This included the physical, social, health and emotional needs of each individual using the service. One individual using the service said that staff usually talked to him when he was ‘feeling low’ and this would make him feel better. Access to health care services and issues regarding healthy living were encouraged and promoted. Staff said that people using the service were encouraged to attend any appointment they may have with health care professionals and this would be part of the individual’ s care plan. One community health care professional commented that staff “ always respond promptly to individual needs of people in their care”. Staff explained that they had access to the health action plan of some of the people who use the service. Such plans were usually developed as part of the ‘person centred’ planning for an individual and was led by other services like the day centres. None of the people who were in for respite care at the time of this inspection were self-medicating. Records of medicines handling, storage and administration were checked and found satisfactory. Medicines were administered by senior staff who had all been trained to do so. DS0000033497.V330836.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 16 Concerns, Complaints and Protection The intended outcomes for Standards 22 – 23 are: 22. 23. Service users feel their views are listened to and acted on. Service users are protected from abuse, neglect and self-harm. The Commission considers Standards 22, and 23 the key standards to be inspected. JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for the following standard(s): 22 and 23. People who use the service experience excellent quality outcomes in this area. We have made this judgement using a range of evidence, including a visit to the service. Information on the complaints procedure and on the protection of vulnerable adults was provided to people using the service and their relatives, in a format that was more accessible to them. People who use the service, their relatives and staff work and communicate well together. This made it possible for them to address and resolve areas of concern in a satisfactory manner. EVIDENCE: The service had use of a corporate complaints procedure provided by the Social services department of Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council. A copy of the procedure was available at the centre. A summary of it was included in the statement of purpose and service user guide. This summary had been designed in a combination of plain English, signs and symbols to make it easier for people using the service to understand. The pre-inspection questionnaire stated that no complaints had been received at the Centre. The manager confirmed this and explained that staff, people using the service and their relatives were in regular contact with each other. This helped in addressing any concern that arose in a prompt and satisfactory manner without having to make a complaint. People who completed a survey DS0000033497.V330836.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 17 about their views of the service, stated that they were aware of the complaints procedure, but have never had to use it. One individual using the service said that if she were not happy with the service, she would ask her parents to complain on her behalf. A copy of a corporate adult protection policy and procedures was available at the Centre. Information about safeguarding vulnerable adults from abuse was also included in the statement of purpose and service user guide. Staff at the Centre had produced a summary using plain English, signs and symbols, in order to make the information easier for the people who use the service to understand it. Also, posters giving information about anti-bullying issues were also prominently displayed at the Centre. Staff explained that they would frequently talk about these issues to people receiving respite care to make sure they knew what to do if someone were to bully them. Training records showed that all staff had been provided with training on adult protection issues and were able to implement the relevant procedures in order to safeguard the welfare of people using the service. DS0000033497.V330836.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 18 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. People who use the service experience good quality outcomes in this area. We have made this judgement using a range of evidence, including a visit to the service. Quarry Hill provides a good standard of accommodation, which is homely, comfortable and safe for people who use the service. EVIDENCE: Quarry Hill provides its accommodation and services in an ordinary house, domestic in style, in a quiet residential area. There is one bedroom on the ground floor and five on the first floor. Access between the two floors is by stairs. The lounge, dining room, kitchen and laundry are on the ground floor. The building has a ramp access for wheelchairs, but it is only partially wheelchair accessible. The bedroom on the ground floor was often used for people who have some mobility problems. The premises were checked in the company of a senior member of staff. The building appeared to be in good state of repair. The manager stated that the Centre had been redecorated since the last inspection (February 2006). New DS0000033497.V330836.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 19 dining room furniture has been provided. The laundry room had been improved to meet the health and safety standard, and was being used by staff only. However, most of the linen was still being sent to the Council’s laundry facility for laundering. People using the service said that they found the place comfortable and pleasant. They were also satisfied with their bedrooms. The Centre was found to be clean and tidy. The garden areas to the front and back were well maintained. The manager said that some people who use the service were now taking an increased interest in the special “sensory” garden, which had been started by relatives. The patio area was well set out with garden furniture, in time for summer. DS0000033497.V330836.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 20 Staffing The intended outcomes for Standards 31 – 36 are: 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. Service users benefit from clarity of staff roles and responsibilities. Service users are supported by competent and qualified staff. Service users are supported by an effective staff team. Service users are supported and protected by the home’s recruitment policy and practices. Service users’ individual and joint needs are met by appropriately trained staff. Service users benefit from well supported and supervised staff. The Commission considers Standards 32, 34 and 35 the key standards to be inspected. JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for the following standard(s): 31, 32, 34, 35 and 36. People who use the service experience good quality outcomes in this area. We have made this judgement using a range of evidence, including a visit to the service. Staff were skilled, competent and committed in caring and supporting people who use the service. Sufficient staff were deployed to meet the needs of people using the respite service. However, not enough attention was given to make sure that workforce issues relating to equality and diversity were addressed for the benefit of people who use the service. EVIDENCE: The manager explained that Quarry Hill had stopped providing a community support service to people with a learning disability. The Rotherham Learning Disability Service has set up a separate stand-alone service for the provision of community support. Staff at Quarry Hill were therefore dedicated to the respite service only. This had brought about some changes in the deployment of staff but the care staff hours for the Centre had not reduced. However, staff who completed a survey about their views of the service, expressed some concern about the daytime staffing arrangements, in particular when people who were receiving respite care, stayed at the Centre for the day. DS0000033497.V330836.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 21 The duty rota showed that the number of care and support staff deployed at busy times, was based on both the occupancy and dependency of people who were receiving respite care. A senior member of staff explained that additional staff would be deployed if people were to stay at the Centre during the day. It was noted that information about what activities people who use the service, were committed to, could be obtained in advance, at the allocation of respite stays. It was therefore possible to make appropriate staffing arrangements to meet their needs. There had been no recruitment of staff since the last inspection. It was noted that most staff members had worked at the Centre for a number of years and were well committed to their work. However, the profile of the current staff team showed that it failed to reflect the diversity of the people it was serving. The imbalance was impacting more on the gender issue, as the service has had no male staff for a long time. The pre-inspection questionnaire indicated that all care staff had achieved their National Vocational qualification (NVQ) level 2 in Care. This was confirmed by details in staff training records. Staff spoken to also confirmed that they had been provided with a range of training in the last year. These had included moving and handling, fire safety, first aid and adult protection. All senior staff had received accredited training on the administration of medicines. The manager explained that the training planned for the coming year, included a foundation course in Makaton and on” skills, crisis, intervention and prevention (SCIP) for all care staff. Staff who completed a survey about their views of the service, stated that they were receiving appropriate support and supervision from the manager. Records checked confirmed that staff were provided with regular supervision and a continuing appraisal, termed, the ‘performance and development review’. DS0000033497.V330836.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 22 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. People who use the service experience good quality outcomes in this area. We have made this judgement using a range of evidence, including a visit to the service. The service was well managed and tried hard to meet the needs of people who were using it. Health and safety issues were satisfactorily managed. Quality monitoring and quality assurance methods were being used to continually improve the service. Commendably, efforts were also being made to improve on methods of communication for the benefit of people who use the service. EVIDENCE: The registered manager has experience of working and managing services for people with a learning disability. She had achieved the National Vocational Qualification (NVQ) level 4 in Care and level 5 in Management. DS0000033497.V330836.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 23 People who use the service, their relatives and staff commented that they were satisfied with the way the service was managed. Relatives who completed a survey about their views of the service stated that both the manager and staff were “approachable and very helpful” and that they were fully committed to caring and supporting their loved ones. They were happy with the way staff kept in communication with them. They commented positively on the organisation of “coffee mornings” at the Centre, which they felt gave them good opportunities to work together. Staff spoken to said that they all worked well as a team. The manager explained that a few quality monitoring and quality assurance methods were used at the Centre. Staff were seeking feedback from people who use the service and their relatives, at the end of each respite stay. The views expressed were recorded, analysed and acted upon, in order to improve the service. Staff also carry out a yearly “customer satisfaction survey”. The last one was undertaken in January this year. The result of this survey has been published and a copy was seen. It indicated that people who use the service and their relatives were very satisfied with it. The issue that was slightly less satisfactory was about “knowing how to make a complaint”. The manager has included the task of publicising the complaints procedures and making it more accessible, in an action plan. Other procedures included the monthly monitoring of accidents and incidents and the management of medicines. There was evidence that the provider was completing monthly unannounced visits and reporting on them. The manager stated that these visits were also used as a means of continually improving the service. It was noted that the service had secured the “Beacon status” in Learning Disability and obtained some additional resources to undertake a ‘ Communication Strategy’ project- “The right to be understood”. This will allow the use of Makaton and other communication methods with people who come in for respite at the Centre. The pre-inspection questionnaire indicated that the maintenance of equipment and the relevant health and safety checks had been undertaken as required. These were confirmed at the inspection. The manager confirmed that risk assessments for the building and for various work practices were in place and that health and safety issues were regularly overseen by the Rotherham Council’ s health and safety team. Staff had received training on health and safety matters, including fire safety. DS0000033497.V330836.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 24 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 4 23 4 ENVIRONMENT Standard No Score 24 3 25 X 26 X 27 X 28 X 29 X 30 3 STAFFING Standard No Score 31 3 32 3 33 X 34 3 35 3 36 3 CONDUCT AND MANAGEMENT OF THE HOME Standard No 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 Score 3 3 X 3 X LIFESTYLES Standard No Score 11 X 12 4 13 4 14 4 15 3 16 3 17 3 PERSONAL AND HEALTHCARE SUPPORT Standard No 18 19 20 21 Score 3 3 3 X 3 X 3 X X 3 X DS0000033497.V330836.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 25 Are there any outstanding requirements from the last inspection? NO. STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS This section sets out the actions, which must be taken so that the registered person/s meets the Care Standards Act 2000, Care Homes Regulations 2001 and the National Minimum Standards. The Registered Provider(s) must comply with the given timescales. No. Standard Regulation Requirement Timescale for action RECOMMENDATIONS These recommendations relate to National Minimum Standards and are seen as good practice for the Registered Provider/s to consider carrying out. No. 1. 2 Refer to Standard YA15 YA34 Good Practice Recommendations A policy on sexuality should be developed in order to guide staff on best practice in this area. Efforts should be made to ensure that the staff who work at the Centre, reflect the diversity of the people it serves and in particular in relation to gender balance. (This recommendation was first made in February 2006.) DS0000033497.V330836.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: 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 DS0000033497.V330836.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!