Inspection on 14/11/06 for Regent

This inspection was carried out on 14th November 2006.

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

Regent 15/12/05

Regent 31/08/05

Regent 30/11/04

Regent 19/05/04

Regent 24/02/04

Similar services:

Maple Lodge

Heathlands

Aston Court Nursing Home

Breme

Ravenhurst

Bank House

Inspirations

Westmead

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

CARE HOMES FOR OLDER PEOPLE Regent School Road St Johns Worcester Worcestershire WR2 4HF Lead Inspector Y South Unannounced Inspection 14th November 2006 09:15 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 Regent DS0000030248.V313952.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. Regent DS0000030248.V313952.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 3 SERVICE INFORMATION Name of service Regent Address School Road St Johns Worcester Worcestershire WR2 4HF 01905 337100 01905 420278 regent@heart-of-england.co.uk www.heart-of-england.co.uk Heart of England Housing and Care Limited 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) Sandra Ann Dixon Care Home 60 Category(ies) of Dementia - over 65 years of age (60), Old age, registration, with number not falling within any other category (60), of places Physical disability over 65 years of age (60) Regent DS0000030248.V313952.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 4 SERVICE INFORMATION Conditions of registration: 1. 2. 1. The home may provide care and accommodation for one named person over the age of 65 years with learning disability needs. The home may provide care and accommodation for two named persons who are under the age of sixty-five years. 15.12.05 Date of last inspection Brief Description of the Service: Regent is a purpose built home situated in a residential area of St Johns on the outskirts of the city of Worcester. It is well placed for access to local amenities and transport. The two-storey building has sixty single bedrooms, all with en-suite facilities. In addition there are communal lounges, dining rooms, toilets and bathrooms on each floor. Shaft lifts facilitate mobility between floors and there is ground floor access to a pleasant enclosed garden. The home is owned by Heart of England Housing and Care Ltd and managed by Mrs Sandra Ann Dixon. A service is offered to a maximum of sixty people of either sex over the age of sixty-five years who have needs associated with old age including physical disabilities and dementia illnesses. The conditions of registration listed above also apply. In the pre inspection questionnaire submitted to the Commission for Social Care Inspection on 29.08.06 by the registered manager the fees quoted were £1720 per month. Additional charges were made for hairdressing, chiropody, newspapers and periodicals, Regent DS0000030248.V313952.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 5 SUMMARY This is an overview of what the inspector found during the inspection. This inspection incorporates information received by the Commission for Social Care Inspection since 15.12.05 and the information obtained during fieldwork on 14.11.06. The fieldwork took place over seven and a half hours during which the inspector spoke to three residents, one relative, four staff and the Care Service Manager. Documents were assessed and a partial tour of the premises was also undertaken. The registered manager for the home returned to the home at the end of the fieldwork and was able to participate in the feedback process. Prior to the fieldwork the home was asked by the Commission for Social Care Inspection to distribute questionnaires to the residents, relatives and health care professionals. 10 responses were received from residents, 3 from relatives and 5 from health care professionals. The focus of this inspection was on the key National Minimum Standards and the requirements and recommendation that arose out of the previous inspection. What the service does well: The home provides a warm friendly welcome to everyone. It is clean tidy and well maintained. A comment made was ’An excellent standard of accommodation’. A choice of meals is always available with further alternatives if desired. A resident said; All meals are very good and they will always change anything you wish to have different.’ Personal and health care is provided as needed by each resident and in addition there is a wide range of in-house and community activities for those who wish to participate. Regent DS0000030248.V313952.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. Regent DS0000030248.V313952.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 Regent DS0000030248.V313952.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 8 Choice of Home The intended outcomes for Standards 1 – 6 are: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Prospective service users have the information they need to make an informed choice about where to live. Each service user has a written contract/ statement of terms and conditions with the home. No service user moves into the home without having had his/her needs assessed and been assured that these will be met. Service users and their representatives know that the home they enter will meet their needs. Prospective service users and their relatives and friends have an opportunity to visit and assess the quality, facilities and suitability of the home. Service users assessed and referred solely for intermediate care are helped to maximise their independence and return home. The Commission considers Standards 3 and 6 the key standards to be inspected. JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for the following standard(s): 3 (This service does not offer intermediate care therefore standard 6 was not assessed) Quality in this outcome area is good. This judgement has been made using available evidence including a visit to this service. People are provided with information and opportunities to visit and try the home before they make a decision on their future care. Everyone is assessed by someone from the home prior to admission in order to ensure their needs can be met in the home. Regent DS0000030248.V313952.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 9 EVIDENCE: It was observed that copies of the Statement of Purpose, Service Users’ Guide and inspection reports were readily available in the reception area of the home. A relative confirmed that she had been offered copies of the documents when she was seeking a home for her relative. Questionnaires completed by residents indicated that relatives had received the information needed to enable decisions to be made. The care records of three residents were assessed during the fieldwork. These demonstrated that the residents had all been assessed prior to admission to ensure the home was able to meet their needs. It was noted that pre-admission assessment documents specifically considered the need for written information in different formats and cultural requirements relating to diet. One resident required written information in a large print format. The inspector was also shown documents that demonstrated that, in addition, the home undertook a monthly analysis of diversity within the home. Regent DS0000030248.V313952.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 10 Health and Personal Care The intended outcomes for Standards 7 – 11 are: 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. The service user’s health, personal and social care needs are set out in an individual plan of care. Service users’ health care needs are fully met. Service users, where appropriate, are responsible for their own medication, and are protected by the home’s policies and procedures for dealing with medicines. Service users feel they are treated with respect and their right to privacy is upheld. Service users are assured that at the time of their death, staff will treat them and their family with care, sensitivity and respect. The Commission considers Standards 7, 8, 9 and 10 the key standards to be inspected. JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for the following standard(s): 7, 8, 9, 10 Quality in this outcome area is good. This judgement has been made using available evidence including a visit to this service. Staff have the information they need and the personal and health needs of the residents are monitored and addressed. Medication is generally well managed so that residents are able to safely receive prescribed medication. Residents are treated with respect and kindness. Information is available so residents can be sure their end of life wishes will be complied with. Regent DS0000030248.V313952.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 11 EVIDENCE: The care records demonstrated that information was available to guide staff in the care of the residents. Assessments had been undertaken and care plans drawn up to address the needs that had been identified. Risk assessments had been carried out where concerns had been identified. Daily records and information relating to visits by health care professionals were detailed and useful. The format in use required staff to make daily evaluation entries relating to each element of the care plans. These had been well maintained. However currently changes were being considered whereby each element would be reviewed monthly and the staff would record on the daily records the events that had taken place. It was considered that this would reduce the documentation for care staff and give a more coherent and complete picture of the residents’ daily life and care. Residents had signed documents to the effect that they were aware that they were able to be involved in their care planning but they had declined the opportunity to sign the documents. It was suggested that even if residents’ declined the opportunity to sign documents staff should record that changes in care plans had been discussed with the individual with their consent their relative. Residents’ questionnaire responses indicated that they received the care and support they needed and the staff listened and acted on what they said most of the time. Five questionnaire responses were received from health care professionals. Four respondents gave positive answers. The fifth respondent gave negative answers with the exception of questions relating to medication and privacy. These were positive. Further comments were made by two health care professionals. These were as follows; ‘Persistent inappropriate requests for doctors’ visits. Difficult to find staff who know the patient’. ‘Very caring environment. Excellent standard of accommodation. Staff uniformly excellent’. Regent DS0000030248.V313952.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 12 The inspector spoke with three residents and they all confirmed that they were happy with their care. One person said that she could not wish for better. Another resident said that it was like a home from home. Everyone was very kind and she had all she needed. It was observed that special equipment had been obtained and put into use where the need arose. Medication was generally well managed. Storage and security was acceptable. All medications received into the home had been checked and recorded. Some handwritten records had not been double signed. When medication is prescribed to be given ‘as directed’ this should be challenged by the home and the pharmacist. The information is insufficient when large teams are involved in administration. The risks of mis administration are too high and the wording is contrary to the advice given to prescribers by the British Pharmaceutical Society It was observed that creams were not always identified when mentioned in care plans and daily records. Privacy and dignity was respected. This was observed and confirmed by staff during the fieldwork. A health care professional stated in the questionnaire response that they were able to see residents in private and assistance was available if needed. All bedroom doors were fitted with approved locks and residents had access to their door keys and the keys to lockable storage. Their mail was delivered unopened and private telephone calls could be made and received. There was information available in the records assessed regarding the residents’ wishes at the end of their lives. Regent DS0000030248.V313952.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 13 Daily Life and Social Activities The intended outcomes for Standards 12 - 15 are: 12. 13. 14. 15. Service users find the lifestyle experienced in the home matches their expectations and preferences, and satisfies their social, cultural, religious and recreational interests and needs. Service users maintain contact with family/ friends/ representatives and the local community as they wish. Service users are helped to exercise choice and control over their lives. Service users receive a wholesome appealing balanced diet in pleasing surroundings at times convenient to them. The Commission considers all of the above key standards to be inspected. JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for the following standard(s): 12, 13, 14, 15 Quality in this outcome area is excellent. This judgement has been made using available evidence including a visit to this service. Residents are able to live the style of life they prefer and participate in a range of in-house and community activities if they wish. They are able to express their views and be involved in decisions that concern the home. They are provided with a choice of good quality meals that they enjoy. EVIDENCE: The pre-inspection questionnaire stated that in house activities included games, quizzes and cards, video evenings, manicures and pedicures, talking books, cheese and wine evenings, sing-along evenings. Community activities included visits to the library, local public houses and garden centres. A vicar came to the home and conducted a Holy Communion Service for those who wished to participate. Regent DS0000030248.V313952.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 14 The records that were assessed indicated that the three residents professed to be of the Church of England faith. The manager confirmed that needs relating to other denominations would be supported as desired by the resident. More details regarding individual wishes in this respect should be included in the residents’ care plans. Questionnaire responses from nine residents confirmed that suitable activities were available. People could chose to participate if they wished. An activities organiser was employed and the care service manger confirmed that every resident received a copy of the activities programme. 1:1 support was also offered to those people who did not wish to join in group activities Notice boards on each floor displayed coming events. The care service manager said that the residents’ representatives talked to all residents on a regular basis and conveyed any concerns to the managers to be addressed. Meetings were held with residents on average every two months and the minutes indicated that there were opportunities for discussion and exchange of information regarding the home and events. Residents confirmed that they were able to use their bedrooms as they wished. They were helped up in the mornings when they were ready and retired at night when they chose. The visitors’ book indicated that there was a steady stream of visitors during the day. This was confirmed by residents who also maintained contact with their family via the mail and telephone. Although their privacy was respected they said that assistance was always available when needed. Approved door locks were fitted to all bedrooms, ensuite facilities, bathrooms and toilets. Residents where able to hold the keys to their bedroom doors and lockable storage. A menu choice was offered each day. In addition there was an ‘alternatives list’ available daily. Enlarged copies of the menus were available for those who needed them. A record was maintained of choices The questionnaire responses contained positive feedback regarding the food and residents who spoke to the inspector confirmed that it was to their liking. Regent DS0000030248.V313952.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 15 Complaints and Protection The intended outcomes for Standards 16 - 18 are: 16. 17. 18. Service users and their relatives and friends are confident that their complaints will be listened to, taken seriously and acted upon. Service users’ legal rights are protected. Service users are protected from abuse. The Commission considers Standards 16 and 18 the key standards to be. JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for the following standard(s): 16, 18 Quality in this outcome area is excellent. This judgement has been made using available evidence including a visit to this service. There is good access to the complaint procedure and people confidently use it and receive an acceptable response. Staff are appropriately recruited and trained to protect the residents in the home. EVIDENCE: Copies of the complaint procedure were contained in the Statement of Purpose and the Service Users’ Guide. The questionnaire responses indicated that residents, relatives and health care professionals would raise any concerns they had. Residents’ questionnaire responses indicated that they knew who to speak to if they had concerns and they knew how to make a complaint. The CSCI had not received any concerns, complaints or allegations since the last inspection. Regent DS0000030248.V313952.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 16 Assessment of the complaint record in the home indicated that since the last inspection there had been two complaints received. One had concerned the provision of drinks and the other a lack of care. Both had been suitably investigated and appropriate action had been taken to ensure there was no reoccurrence. Concerns regarding the vulnerability of residents had been responded to appropriately and advocacy services had been used. Three staff were interviewed by the inspector and their records were assessed. They demonstrated that they had been appropriately recruited and trained to support and protect the vulnerable people in the home. This was confirmed by their records. Regent DS0000030248.V313952.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. JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for the following standard(s): 19, 26 Quality in this outcome area is excellent. This judgement has been made using available evidence including a visit to this service. Residents live in a comfortable clean home that meets their needs. They have access to the garden for fresh air, exercise and recreation. The risks of cross infection are reduced as much as possible by the equipment and systems in place. EVIDENCE: It was observed that the home was clean and well maintained. The preinspection questionnaire indicated that since the last inspection bedrooms, lounges and dining rooms had been redecorated and re-carpeted. Regent DS0000030248.V313952.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 18 Questionnaire responses indicated that the residents and their relatives appreciated the high standards of the environment. One person said that the home was ‘perfect’. Three residents’ bedrooms were assessed. They were well decorated and furnished. Residents had been encouraged to arrange their own personal possessions such as ornaments and photographs. Where necessary special care equipment was either in use or available for use. The laundry was well organised and equipped with commercial machines. However the home only had one tumble dryer. Although this was a large commercial machine there was no ‘back up’ should it break down. On occasions when this had happened considerable inconvenience occurred. Personal protective equipment, liquid soap, disposable hand towels and waste disposal systems were available to reduce the risks of cross infection and staff and records confirmed that training had been undertaken. Regent DS0000030248.V313952.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. JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for the following standard(s): 27,28,29,30 Quality in this outcome area is good. This judgement has been made using available evidence including a visit to this service. Suitable staff are recruited and employed to care for the residents. There is a strong commitment to training so staff are knowledgeable and skilled and provide a good service. EVIDENCE: On the day of the fieldwork seven staff were commencing their induction training. A training matrix was displayed in the manager’s office that demonstrated that staff had received mandatory training and were updated as necessary. In addition other subjects were covered that related to the needs of the residents. The pre inspection questionnaire indicated that the care team numbered 52 persons of whom 24 had qualified to NVQ level 2 or above. Regent DS0000030248.V313952.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 20 This equates to 48 and is fractionally under the National Minimum Standard requirement of 50 . However since the document was submitted the care team has changed to 47 persons of whom 22 are qualified and a further 8 people are currently undertaking courses. The commitment to training is commendable and is necessary to ensure the number of qualified staff is sufficient to maintain the 50 minimum despite changes in the team members. An acceptable duty roster was submitted to the CSCI. Questionnaire responses indicated that most residents considered there were sufficient staff to provide the care they needed. However one resident said that there were times when the staff were ‘over busy’. Nine staff had left the employment of the home since the last inspection. Recruitment had been undertaken and at the time of the fieldwork there were only two vacancies still to be filled. Three staff were interviewed by the inspector. They were knowledgeable and confident in their roles. They were able to confirm their training records and recount an acceptable recruitment process. The staff records indicated that application forms had been completed, interviews conducted and references taken up. In addition checks had been undertaken through the Criminal Records Bureau and of the Protection of Vulnerable Adults register. Regent DS0000030248.V313952.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. JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for the following standard(s): 31, 33, 35, 38 Quality in this outcome area is excellent. This judgement has been made using available evidence including a visit to this service. The home is well managed in the interests of the residents. Health and safety systems protect those in the home. The systems in use are regularly monitored in order that quality can be assessed and the service can develop. Residents’ personal monies are well managed in their best interests. Regent DS0000030248.V313952.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 22 EVIDENCE: The Registered Manager was experienced and competent to manage the home. A relatives said that communication between the home and herself was good and the questionnaire responses indicated that people considered that they were kept well informed. The staff described the management team as ‘very nice’ and ‘approachable’ One person said that the support from the management team was ‘second to none’. Another person said that there was a ‘teamful approach’ which was appreciated. All staff received regular supervision/support sessions and this was recorded. Quality assurance questionnaires were distributed by the home and analysed monthly. Evidence was seen that where necessary responses had been made and action taken. Monthly meetings were held with all staff groups that provided another forum to discuss and resolve concerns, and plan how to improve the service further. In addition monthly audits were made of other areas of practice such as accidents, complaints, equality and diversity. This enabled weaknesses and concerns to be identified and addressed. Residents’ money held in safekeeping and managed on their behalf was stored securely and appropriately receipted and recorded. It was recommended that personal items held in safekeeping also be receipted in and out. The health and safety and maintenance manual demonstrated that equipment and services were regularly monitored and serviced. This was endorsed by the information in the pre-inspection questionnaire. A Health and Safety Officer had expressed concerns regarding the quality of risk assessments and supporting care plans that had been developed for a resident who had experienced falls. Requirements had been made that all risk assessments be reviewed and an action plan be put in place to monitor the quality of assessments and plans, training and supervision. This had been addressed. During the fieldwork appropriate documentation was assessed. The fire risk assessment was available for the home and checks were regularly undertaken of the fire safety systems. Staff received training in health and safety matters including fire safety. Training records were seen and staff confirmed that they had had the training. Regent DS0000030248.V313952.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 3 x x N/A HEALTH AND PERSONAL CARE Standard No Score 7 3 8 4 9 3 10 4 11 3 DAILY LIFE AND SOCIAL ACTIVITIES Standard No Score 12 4 13 4 14 4 15 4 COMPLAINTS AND PROTECTION Standard No Score 16 4 17 x 18 4 4 x x x x x x 3 STAFFING Standard No Score 27 3 28 3 29 3 30 3 MANAGEMENT AND ADMINISTRATION Standard No 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 Score 4 x 3 x 3 3 x 4 Regent DS0000030248.V313952.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. 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. Refer to Standard Good Practice Recommendations Regent DS0000030248.V313952.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 25 Commission for Social Care Inspection Worcester Local Office Commission for Social Care Inspection The Coach House John Comyn Drive Perdiswell Park, Droitwich Road Worcester WR3 7NW 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 Regent DS0000030248.V313952.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 26 - 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!