Inspection on 26/09/06 for Read House

This inspection was carried out on 26th September 2006.

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

The inspector found there to be outstanding requirements from the previous inspection report but made no statutory requirements on the home.

Other inspections for this house

Read House 29/08/07

Read House 09/02/06

Read House 03/08/05

Read House 04/03/05

Read House 15/12/04

Read House 12/03/04

Similar services:

Claremont House

Oak Ridge

Coopers Mill Ltd

Sun Court Nursing Home

Ashville House

Pocklington House

Bramley Avenue (73)

Bilney Hall

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

CARE HOMES FOR OLDER PEOPLE Read House 23 The Esplanade Frinton On Sea Essex CO13 9AU Lead Inspector Marion Angold Key Unannounced Inspection 26th September 2006 10:40 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 Read House DS0000017916.V311167.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. Read House DS0000017916.V311167.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 3 SERVICE INFORMATION Name of service Read House Address 23 The Esplanade Frinton On Sea Essex CO13 9AU 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) 01255 673654 01255 673177 info@essexblind.co.uk www.essexblind.co.uk Essex Blind Charity Mrs Rosemary Danby Care Home 40 Category(ies) of Dementia - over 65 years of age (7), Old age, registration, with number not falling within any other category (40), of places Physical disability over 65 years of age (40), Sensory Impairment over 65 years of age (40) Read House DS0000017916.V311167.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 4 SERVICE INFORMATION Conditions of registration: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Persons of either sex, aged 65 years and over, who require care by reason of Old Age (not to exceed 40 persons) Persons of either sex, aged 65 years and over, who require care by reason of a physical disability (not to exceed 40 persons) Persons of either sex, aged 65 years and over, who require care by reason of a sensory impairment (not to exceed 40 persons) Persons of either sex, aged 65 years and over, who require care by reason of dementia, whose names were provided to the Commission in May 2005 The total number of service users accommodated in the home must not exceed 40 persons 9th February 2006 Date of last inspection Brief Description of the Service: Read House is a purpose built establishment for older people with sight impediments and is owned by Essex Voluntary Association for the Blind. It is situated on the promenade of Frinton-on-Sea, within easy reach of the town. The home offers accommodation on three levels, with all rooms being serviced by a passenger lift. The dining room is on the ground floor but there are two small lounges on each level. There is space for parking at the front of the home and a large sensory garden to the rear. All bedrooms are for single occupancy, with en-suites, and two are designated for respite care. Attached to Read House is a day centre. Service users are encouraged to participate in the weekly programme of activities and attend special events, such as concerts. The weekly charge for a room is between £367.15 and £475.00. Additional charges are made for chiropody, hairdressing, newspapers, toiletries and other personal items. Read House DS0000017916.V311167.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 5 SUMMARY This is an overview of what the inspector found during the inspection. In writing this report, the inspector used available evidence, including information provided by relatives and health care professionals, who responded to surveys sent out by the Commission for Social Care Inspection. Evidence was also collected in the context of a complaint about the service and an investigation of an allegation made against a member of staff. The function of CSCI in such matters is to monitor how the registered persons handle them and, in both cases, their response was constructive and appropriate. During the unannounced inspection visit, which took place on Tuesday 27 September 2006, the inspector • • • • • spoke with residents spoke with staff and the person in charge (Responsible Individual). The Registered Manager had a day off. watched how residents and staff got along together looked around some of the home looked at some records. Of the 24 Standards inspected for this report, 18 were met. Some improvement was needed in respect of the remaining 6 Standards. What the service does well: What has improved since the last inspection? Read House DS0000017916.V311167.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 6 All records inspected had been appropriately signed and dated, so that people could know who made them and keep track of change and development. The activities coordinator was continuing to develop the programme of activities in line with people’s needs and preferences. As indicated above, residents were positive about these changes. A gazebo had been erected in the garden to provide shelter for residents who wished to sit outside. 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. Read House DS0000017916.V311167.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 7 DETAILS OF INSPECTOR FINDINGS CONTENTS Choice of Home (Standards 1–6) Health and Personal Care (Standards 7-11) Daily Life and Social Activities (Standards 12-15) Complaints and Protection (Standards 16-18) Environment (Standards 19-26) Staffing (Standards 27-30) Management and Administration (Standards 31-38) Scoring of Outcomes Statutory Requirements Identified During the Inspection Read House DS0000017916.V311167.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 8 Choice of Home The intended outcomes for Standards 1 – 6 are: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Prospective service users have the information they need to make an informed choice about where to live. Each service user has a written contract/ statement of terms and conditions with the home. No service user moves into the home without having had his/her needs assessed and been assured that these will be met. Service users and their representatives know that the home they enter will meet their needs. Prospective service users and their relatives and friends have an opportunity to visit and assess the quality, facilities and suitability of the home. Service users assessed and referred solely for intermediate care are helped to maximise their independence and return home. The Commission considers Standards 3 and 6 the key standards to be inspected at least once during a 12 month period. JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for the following standard(s): 3. NMS 6 did not apply to Read House The quality of service in this outcome area has been assessed as good, based on the following judgement: Residents were admitted on a mutual understanding that their needs would be met and did not have assurance in writing. EVIDENCE: To accompany the service users guide, the home had produced separate information and welcome booklets, giving information about the home and facilities offered to residents. These were clearly presented, with photographs, and suitable for people who could read large print. They were also available in Braille. Although 7 out of 16 respondents to the Commission’s survey of relatives and representatives did not think they had access to a copy of the Inspection reports, a notice was displayed, advising visitors that copies were available from the home on request. Read House DS0000017916.V311167.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 9 A sample of residents’ records showed that the process of admission to Read House continued to be based on a pre-admission assessment of need and information supplied by the prospective resident’s general practitioner. The Responsible Individual acknowledged that it had not been their practice to write to prospective residents confirming the home could meet their needs. One resident described how they had based their decision to come and live at Read House on their experience of several respite stays and how they had been absolutely sure this was the right decision for them. Read House DS0000017916.V311167.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 10 Health and Personal Care The intended outcomes for Standards 7 – 11 are: 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. The service user’s health, personal and social care needs are set out in an individual plan of care. Service users’ health care needs are fully met. Service users, where appropriate, are responsible for their own medication, and are protected by the home’s policies and procedures for dealing with medicines. Service users feel they are treated with respect and their right to privacy is upheld. Service users are assured that at the time of their death, staff will treat them and their family with care, sensitivity and respect. The Commission considers Standards 7, 8, 9 and 10 the key standards to be inspected at least once during a 12 month period. JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for the following standard(s): 7, 8, 9 and 10 The quality of service in this outcome area has been assessed as good, based on the following judgements: • The residents’ health, personal and social care needs were set out in an individual plan of care. • Residents’ health care needs were met. • Some of the home’s practices for dealing with medicines did not fully protect residents. • Residents felt they were treated with respect but practice did not always promote their dignity. EVIDENCE: A sample of four residents’ records showed that care plans continued to cover a range of personal, health and social care needs, evaluated, more or less, on a monthly basis. Daily records, though brief, showed some link to care plans. Although staff spent time talking with residents about their welfare and needs, it was not evident from the care plans or evaluations that residents had taken part in these processes. Read House DS0000017916.V311167.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 11 Following observations at the last inspection, records inspected had been appropriately signed and dated, so that people could know who made them and keep track of change and development. 14 out of 16 relatives, who responded to the Commission’s survey, said they were kept informed about important matters relating to the member of their family. Separate from these returns, someone complained that they had not been informed when their relative sustained a minor injury. The registered persons acknowledged that this had been an oversight and that the relative should have been told. They also addressed the relative’s concerns about how the wound had been treated. It appeared that staff acted in good faith but possibly, should have prompted the District Nurses, when they did come to redress the wound, rather than try to do this themselves. One of the care plans sampled showed that the home had taken constructive action in respect of a person, who had experienced a number of falls, by consulting a falls prevention specialist. The inspector suggested the home might also contact the Community Nurse for residential homes, who had expertise in this area. Records and discussions in respect of a resident, who had chosen to spend the day in bed on a number of occasions, showed that their appetite, drinking and weight had been appropriately monitored. These had remained stable and the person concerned was fully satisfied with the care and attention they were receiving. Residents continued to benefit from the weekly surgery, held at the home, by a local GP. Five healthcare professionals, who responded to the Commission’s survey, were positive about the way the home communicated and worked in partnership with them. They affirmed that they could see their patients in private and that any specialist advice they gave was incorporated into residents’ plans of care. Two GPs responded positively about their experience of the home’s management of residents’ medication. The administration of medication, observed at lunchtime, was found to be mostly satisfactory. The medication trolley was locked when unattended. Although it is recognised that staff become familiar with residents’ medication, they must still check names and details on the monitored dosage sheets against the Medication Administration Record, before handing out the medication. The practice of putting medication into people’s mouths by hand, observed during this inspection, must also be avoided in the interests of hygiene and promoting independence and dignity. For the convenience, comfort and dignity of residents, the home should review their practice of administering medication during the meal, particularly in respect of applications, such as eye drops. Read House DS0000017916.V311167.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 12 In other respects, arrangements to promote the dignity of residents were found to be satisfactory. Residents showed by their comments that they felt respected and this was confirmed by observation of the interaction between staff and residents during the inspection. Two residents said they liked to have their doors open but that staff would knock before entering. The Responsible Individual said that residents had been consulted about dietary notices on their dining tables and opted to keep them. However, these continue to detract from the homeliness of the setting and have implications for privacy and dignity. Read House DS0000017916.V311167.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 The quality of service in this outcome area has been assessed as good, based on the following judgements: • • • • The diversity of residents’ lifestyles and backgrounds was reflected in some of their daily routines and activities. Residents were supported to maintain contact with the people who mattered to them and the local community. In the main, residents were supported to exercise choice and control over their lives. Residents received a wholesome, appealing and balanced diet in pleasant surroundings. EVIDENCE: The complainant referred to in other parts of this report said their relative had been disappointed by the lack of activities on offer during their respite stay. Records showed that this person had mostly declined to take part in the activities programme. The activities coordinator, who was at the home for two sessions during the inspection, organised a number of events for residents at Read House from Monday to Friday. This person spoke enthusiastically about their role, which allowed them time to talk with residents about their preferred Read House DS0000017916.V311167.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 14 activities and shop for those who could not get out. They were also developing activities for a small group of residents with dementia and the inspector advised them how to access specialist advice and resources for this aspect of their work. Residents commented that there was always plenty going on for them in the home as well as minibus outings to local places of interest. One person said that some of the activities were more for the young but they were nonetheless enjoyable and brought people together, even if they did not participate. Two residents confirmed that staff supported them as much as they could, within time constraints, to go out independently. Staff regularly escorted one person to choir practice and church. One resident proposed that activities should be announced at breakfast for the benefit of those who could not see the notice board. During the afternoon, while organised activities were taking place downstairs, care staff spent time in one of the small lounges on the upper floor, talking, singing and being sociable with a small group of relatively frail residents. This seemed to be working well. Fifteen out of 16 respondents to the survey of relatives said that they felt welcome in the home at any time. All said they could see their relative in private. There were a number of rooms where this could happen. One resident said, ‘We can do as we please, here.’ Care plans clearly documented occasions when residents had declined support or provision, indicating that the home was upholding their right to choose. The need to infringe a person’s rights, in the interests of their safety was also documented on one of the sampled files. Their care plan detailed why, as on the afternoon of the inspection, they were in a chair that restricted their movement and how staff should respond to their resistance to this arrangement. The home should ensure that decisions to restrain residents for their safety are made in consultation with healthcare professionals, such as an occupational therapist and/or community nurse. Residents commented positively about their meals. The home continued to employ a dedicated chef for the home and day centre. Food was plentiful and freshly prepared. Residents were consulted about their menu choices for the main meal a day in advance. They were asked about puddings alternatives at the table, as observed during the inspection. One person commented that, if they did not like something they were served, they would be offered an alternative. Between meals, hot or cold beverages were prepared in the communal facilities on each floor and residents also had jugs of water in their rooms. Arrangements for serving meals were flexible, with some people remaining in their rooms through choice or circumstance. The relative of a short-stay visitor complained that residents were not always given the guidance and support they needed at meal times. The Responsible Individual stated that all staff received visual awareness training and were Read House DS0000017916.V311167.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 15 regularly reminded to give appropriate support at meal times to people with visual impairments. One of the four care plans inspected gave instructions to staff to show the person concerned where things were on the dining table. Staff were also observed explaining to residents, as food was put before them, what they would find on their plate. It was observed that five residents were sitting on their own at lunchtime at tables for two. One person said they were did not mind this arrangement, but another did not know why they were on their own. The Responsible Individual said that all residents had been offered the opportunity to sit with others but some had requested to sit by themselves. It is recommended that seating arrangements are kept under review, to ensure they are flexible, especially for residents who depend on staff to bring them to the table and those who were grouped according to dietary needs. The Responsible Individual stated that, since it had been raised at an earlier inspection, residents had been consulted about the dietary notices on dining tables and opted to keep them in place. However, as this practice is institutional rather than homely and has implications for the privacy and dignity of residents, the registered persons should consider other ways of achieving the same objectives. Reference to the inappropriateness of residents receiving applications, such as eye drops at the table, was made under the section on medication. Read House DS0000017916.V311167.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 16 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 The quality of service in this outcome area has been assessed as good, based on the following judgements: • • Residents and relatives’ complaints were listened to, taken seriously and acted upon. In the main, residents were protected from abuse but they were put at some risk by inconsistent recruitment practices. EVIDENCE: Seven out of 16 respondents to the Commission’s survey of relatives said they were not aware of the home’s complaints procedure. However, this was set out in the Service Users Guide, the brochures about the home and displayed in the entrance to the home. None of the seven healthcare professionals had received complaints about the home. Since the last inspection, the registered persons had shown that they take complaints and allegations seriously and deal with them openly and according to relevant procedures. In respect of the complaint received since the last inspection, the registered persons had, following investigation, written to the complainant, addressing each of the issues they had raised, acknowledging any mistakes made by the home. The second situation involved an allegation against a member of staff. The registered persons handled this sensitively and responsibly, taking appropriate steps to protect residents and cooperating fully Read House DS0000017916.V311167.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 17 in the investigation, according to their own procedures and locally agreed protocols for protecting vulnerable adults. As highlighted under the section on Staffing, management had not taken all the necessary steps to safeguard residents by making sure that the people recruited to support them were fit to do so. Read House DS0000017916.V311167.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 18 Environment The intended outcomes for Standards 19 – 26 are: 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. Service users live in a safe, well-maintained environment. Service users have access to safe and comfortable indoor and outdoor communal facilities. Service users have sufficient and suitable lavatories and washing facilities. Service users have the specialist equipment they require to maximise their independence. Service users’ own rooms suit their needs. Service users live in safe, comfortable bedrooms with their own possessions around them. Service users live in safe, comfortable surroundings. The home is clean, pleasant and hygienic. The Commission considers Standards 19 and 26 the key standards to be inspected at least once during a 12 month period. JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for the following standard(s): 19, 20, 21, 24 and 26 The quality of service in this outcome area has been assessed as good, based on the following judgements: • • • • • Residents were living in a safe, well-maintained environment. Residents had access to safe and comfortable indoor and outdoor communal facilities. Residents did not have use of all the available lavatory and washing facilities. Residents had safe, comfortable bedrooms with their own possessions around them. The home was clean, pleasant and hygienic. EVIDENCE: In the main, the home was found to be well maintained and suitable arrangements were in place to monitor and address environmental risks, including regular convening of a health and safety committee. Read House DS0000017916.V311167.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 19 The inspector recommended that to promote a more homely atmosphere, particular notices, intended for the instruction of staff, should be removed from public display boards. For the same reason, it was suggested that the home review the suitability of displaying staff training certificates in the residents’ dining area. Residents benefited from lounges on each level with a sea view, some also with balconies. A gazebo, providing shelter had been set up in the garden, with seating, and residents continued to have the benefits of a sensory garden. Two bathrooms, one on the ground floor, the other on the first floor, were not in use on the day of inspection. One was out of order, the other being used for storage. Another bathroom was being refurbished. Although the home still had several bathrooms in working order, for the convenience of residents in their location, the remaining bathrooms should be restored to full use as soon as possible. Bedrooms were comfortable and homely, reflecting the individuality of their occupants. One resident was pleased they had been able to bring their bed from home. No environmental hazards were identified that required immediate action but risk assessments should be completed for open balconies, which posed the same risk to residents as unrestricted windows, and the oxygen containers, used by one of the residents. The home was clean and fresh in all areas inspected. The home employed domestic staff to cover cleaning and laundry tasks. The person responsible for the laundry was positive about the benefits of the new washing machines (one with sluice facility) and the training they had received. Staff were observed making appropriate use of personal protective clothing both for personal care and providing support at mealtimes. The home’s procedures for handling soiled linen were suitable, as described by staff. Read House DS0000017916.V311167.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 20 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 The quality of service in this outcome area has been assessed as good, based on the following judgements: • • • • The numbers and skill mix of staff were meeting residents’ needs. Residents were in safe hands. Residents were not fully protected by the home’s recruitment practices. Staff were trained and competent to do their jobs. EVIDENCE: Staffing arrangements had not changed since the last inspection. Although management and staff acknowledged that a number of staff had left and they had sometimes struggled to cover the roster, records showed that, most of the time, there were six care staff available to support residents throughout the day and 4 at night. Twelve out of 16 respondents to the Commissions’ survey of relatives were of the opinion that there were sufficient staff on duty. The activity coordinator’s hours continued to be supernumerary to the care rota and the home employed dedicated personnel for domestic, kitchen and dining room duties and maintenance tasks. One care assistant said that the input of the activities coordinator enabled care staff to spend more time with the residents not doing programmed activities. This was evident during the inspection. Residents also appeared to be well supported by numbers of care and ancillary staff on hand at lunchtime. Read House DS0000017916.V311167.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 21 Several residents spoke well of their carers’ ability to support them, making comments like, ‘ they understand what I need’, and (one person remaining in their room) ‘People come and check I am ok’. All 16 relatives, responding to the Commission’s survey said they were satisfied with the overall care provided. Health care professionals also responded positively to questions about care management and staff understanding of residents’ care needs. The Responsible Individual reported that they had completed Criminal Record Bureau disclosures for all volunteer staff. The files of 5 new or prospective members of staff evidenced a methodical approach to recruitment, with a checklist for all the required documents. However, one application form had a gap in the record of employment, which needed to be explored; one person had a very recent enhanced Criminal Record Bureau disclosure but Read House themselves had not applied for this, as the regulations stipulate. In two instances, the registered persons needed to show, by keeping a record of the interview, that they had addressed particular matters arising from the application form. They also needed to ensure they had photographic identity for every member of staff. A member of staff from an agency said they had not been asked to produce identity, when they arrived at the home. This procedure is necessary to safeguard residents. Records of the home’s annual training programme, and discussions with staff, showed that training was taken seriously at Read House. The person responsible for training had just obtained a set of training videos to develop and assess competency in four key practice areas, including the role of the key worker and the protection of residents from abuse. Records showed that a high ratio of staff were working towards, or had already achieved, the National Vocational Qualification in care, Level 2 and that 9 were involved in Level 3 training. A number of staff met with the college based NVQ tutor during the inspection. Domestic staff were also trained to NVQ, Level 1. Discussions with the Responsible Individual outside of this inspection had shown that staff were not expected to join the roster until they had received induction training. Staff confirmed this. New staff said they had shadowed an experienced member of the team for several weeks until they felt confident to work on their own and the senior colleague thought they were ready to do so. New staff also worked through an induction programme, covering a wide range of topics. At the time of the inspection, the home was introducing the Common Induction Standards, developed by Skills for Care (organisation that sets standards for social care training). One relatively new member of staff felt all this had been good preparation for their role. Read House DS0000017916.V311167.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 22 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 The quality of service in this outcome area has been assessed as good, based on the following judgements: • • • • Residents were benefiting from a well run home. The home was promoting the best interests of residents. Residents’ financial interests were safeguarded. The health, safety and welfare of residents and staff were promoted and protected. EVIDENCE: Residents made positive comments about management. One person said that the Responsible Individual would sort anything out, if you went to them. A member of care staff mentioned how well they felt supported in their role by the Registered Manager. Read House DS0000017916.V311167.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 23 The registered persons continued to distribute and collate service user/relative surveys. The Responsible Individual explained how comments were used to inform the development of the home and, particularly, if there were resource implications, brought to the attention of the Board of Directors. The Responsible Individual said they had meetings with the Board at least six times a year, to review matters relating to the welfare of residents including staffing levels, the premises and any issues arising from CSCI inspection reports. Apart from some remaining inconsistencies in recruitment, the registered persons had taken action to comply with regulatory requirements brought to their notice. Arrangements for ensuring that residents’ personal money was safe and accessible to them had not changed since the last inspection, when this Standard was met. Residents expressed satisfaction with the support they received from the home to safeguard their personal money. They indicated that they could request money when they wanted it and were involved in recording the transactions. During the inspection a member of staff was observed bringing shopping requested by one of the residents, together with the receipt and change. A recent concern brought to the attention of the Commission suggested that one person’s money and valuables were recorded in detail when they entered the home but not checked off against the record when they left. The registered persons apologised for this oversight, which they said was not their usual practice. Arrangements for promoting the health and safety of residents and staff had not changed since the inspection in February, when this Standard was met. The health and safety committee continued to meet regularly to review all related matters and decide any necessary action. These meetings had been minuted. The person overseeing all aspects of health and safety was also responsible for the home’s training programme and had a computerised system in place for ensuring that staff received their required training. Environmental risks continued to be identified and reviewed. During this inspection, the need for risk assessments was identified in respect of the oxygen used by one of the residents. Risk assessment should also be in place for balconies, which posed the same risk to residents as unrestricted windows. Read House DS0000017916.V311167.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 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 2 X X N/A HEALTH AND PERSONAL CARE Standard No Score 7 3 8 3 9 2 10 2 11 X DAILY LIFE AND SOCIAL ACTIVITIES Standard No Score 12 3 13 3 14 3 15 3 COMPLAINTS AND PROTECTION Standard No Score 16 3 17 X 18 2 3 3 2 X X 3 X 3 STAFFING Standard No Score 27 3 28 3 29 2 30 3 MANAGEMENT AND ADMINISTRATION Standard No 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 Score 3 X 3 X 3 X X 3 Read House DS0000017916.V311167.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 25 Are there any outstanding requirements from the last inspection? YES STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS This section sets out the actions, which must be taken so that the registered person/s meets the Care Standards Act 2000, Care Homes Regulations 2001 and the National Minimum Standards. The Registered Provider(s) must comply with the given timescales. No. 1. Standard OP2 Regulation 14 1 (d) Requirement Timescale for action 31/10/06 2. OP9 13 (2) 3. OP29 OP18 17, Sch4 19, Sch2 The registered persons must ensure that, before residents move in, they have confirmation in writing that the home is able to meet their needs. The registered persons must 31/10/06 ensure that arrangements for the administration of medicines in the care home comply with safety requirements and relevant legislation. The registered persons must 31/10/06 ensure that they adhere to thorough recruitment procedures, including the completion of Criminal Record Bureau disclosures on all paid and voluntary staff. THIS REQUIREMENT HAS EXCEEDED AGREED TIMESCALES SINCE THE INSPECTION 12/3/2004. Read House DS0000017916.V311167.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 26 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 OP9 OP10 OP15 OP14 Good Practice Recommendations The registered persons should review dining arrangements to ensure they promote residents’ diversity, independence, dignity and choice. The home should ensure that decisions to restrain residents for their safety are made in consultation with healthcare professionals, such as an occupational therapist and/or community nurse. It is recommended that the registered persons remove staff notices from general view and review the display of staff training certificates in residents’ communal areas. The registered persons should arrange for the bathing and toilet facilities to be restored to full working order. The registered persons should complete risk assessments in respect of any oxygen used by residents and open balconies. 3. 4. 5. OP20 OP21 OP7 OP38 Read House DS0000017916.V311167.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 27 Commission for Social Care Inspection Colchester Local Office 1st Floor, Fairfax House Causton Road Colchester Essex CO1 1RJ 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 Read House DS0000017916.V311167.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 28 - 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!