Inspection on 19/04/07 for Rivermead

This inspection was carried out on 19th April 2007.

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

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

Other inspections for this house

Rivermead 29/06/09

Rivermead 27/01/06

Rivermead 06/12/05

Rivermead 22/01/05

Rivermead 28/06/04

Rivermead 16/02/04

Similar services:

Claremont House

Oak Ridge

Sun Court Nursing Home

Ashville House

Bramley Avenue (73)

Bilney Hall

Hill Barn

Mabbs Hall Nursing Home

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

CARE HOMES FOR OLDER PEOPLE Rivermead Halsey Road Kempston Bedfordshire MK42 8AU Lead Inspector Leonorah Milton Unannounced Inspection 19th April 2007 10.45 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 Rivermead DS0000014953.V334865.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. Rivermead DS0000014953.V334865.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 3 SERVICE INFORMATION Name of service Rivermead Address Halsey Road Kempston Bedfordshire MK42 8AU 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) 01234 851573 01234 843643 westfies@bupa.com BUPA Care Homes (Bedfordshire) Ltd Sharon Elizabeth Westfield Care Home 33 Category(ies) of Dementia - over 65 years of age (33), Old age, registration, with number not falling within any other category (33), of places Physical disability over 65 years of age (33) Rivermead DS0000014953.V334865.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 4 SERVICE INFORMATION Conditions of registration: Date of last inspection 27th January 2006 Brief Description of the Service: Rivermead is operated by BUPA Care Homes (Bedfordshire) Ltd. The service is registered to provide for older people who may also have dementia and/or physical disabilities. People living in the home at this inspection had some form of cognitive impairment. The home is situated a short distance from the local centre which has a group of shops, church and public houses. On same site as the home is a day centre that is used by some of the people living in the home. A health centre with dentist and chiropodist are located in an adjacent building. The premise had been was purpose built on two levels that were accessed by a shaft lift and staircases. The home is divided into three units that each have a combined lounge/dining area and kitchenette facilities. This division is more of an operational nature, as people loving in the home use the entire building, regardless of the unit where they are accommodated. Weekly fees for accommodation were between £467.07 to £555. Rivermead DS0000014953.V334865.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 5 SUMMARY This is an overview of what the inspector found during the inspection. This report sets out the significant evidence that has been collated by the Commission for Social Care (CSCI) since the last visit to and public report on, the home’s service provision in January 2006. Reports from the home, other statutory agencies, and information gathered at the site visit to the home, which was carried out on 19th April 2007 between 10.45 and 19.20, were taken into account. The visit to the home included a review of the case files for three people using the service, conversations with five people living in the home, four visitors to the home, four members of staff and the manager. Much of the time was spent with people in the lounges, where the daily lifestyle was observed. A partial tour of the building was carried out and other records were reviewed. What the service does well: What has improved since the last inspection? Action had been taken on recommendations from the last report to ensure records were maintained of people’s property and to obtain their signatures or, where appropriate, that of their representative, to agree plans for their care. Training for staff in procedures to recognise and prevent abusive practice had commenced. Rivermead DS0000014953.V334865.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 6 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. Rivermead DS0000014953.V334865.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 Rivermead DS0000014953.V334865.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): Standards 3,6. Quality in this outcome area is good. This judgement has been made using available evidence including a visit to this service. The home had obtained information about people’s needs before admission to ensure the home had the capacity to properly care for them. EVIDENCE: Three cases files were assessed at this inspection. Each showed that detailed pre-assessments of need had been carried out before people had been admitted. These had included information from placing authorities, and health care providers where people had been admitted from hospital. The home had an established admissions procedure that included its own written assessment of need that was also used unless people were admitted under an emergency situation. In most instances, people moving into the home had been reliant on their relatives to visit and assess the home on their behalf. A relative spoken to at the inspection described how they had visited the home prior to admission. Rivermead DS0000014953.V334865.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 9 They stated they had been given detailed information about the service and its procedures. The home did not provide an intermediate care service. Rivermead DS0000014953.V334865.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): Standards 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. Despite there being some gaps in written care planning arrangements it was evident that staff were aware of peoples’ needs, how these were to be met and had cared for them properly. EVIDENCE: Three case files were assessed. Each contained a recent evaluation of need and a care plan that set out how needs was to be met. The plans covered health, social and personal needs. There had been however, some delay to update plans about recent changes in need for at least one person. The care plan for one person was dated December 2006. The evaluation on that date recorded that the resident was compliant with moving and handling assistance. The plan stated that the resident was able to walk short distances with one carer and needed a wheelchair for longer distances. One member of staff was to help the resident to walk short distances, such as to the toilet “at all times.” The observed practice on the day of the inspection was seen to be two carers assisting the resident to transfer to a wheelchair to go to the toilet. It was explained that this was because the resident “would not always walk”. The Rivermead DS0000014953.V334865.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 11 plan also showed the strategies to prevent the development of pressure sores included the provision of a pentaflex cushion. It was noted that the resident was not seated on such a cushion on the day of the inspection. The inspector was given to understand that this was an unusual oversight. The relative of this person spoke to the inspector at some length. They confirmed they were satisfied with the care arrangements for their relative and praised the staff for their efforts, stating that they felt staff understood the resident’s needs. They stated that care plans had been sent to them for approval because the resident was unable to understand such documents or articulate their needs. Discussions with staff on duty showed that they were familiar with people’s needs and how these were to be met. There was evidence to show that people living in the home had been supported to access health care appointments for routine treatments such as chiropody and had been referred to their doctors and other specialists as need be. Visitors spoken to confirmed that speedy action had been taken to refer people to their doctors when the need had arisen. One stated they had been regularly updated about changes in their relative’s needs and “had confidence in the home’s ability to care for them”. Medicines were stored in a purpose built, lockable trolley that was stored in a locked office when not in use around the home. Spare medicines were stored in a locked cupboard within that office. Medicines were only administered by members of the team who had received training in safe practice. A member of staff who had recently undertaken such training was observed as they administered medicines. During this they were able to explain their understanding of safe practice and were seen to be diligent in this practice. Records inspected showed that medicines had been administered as prescribed. It was noted that prescriptions had been reviewed on a regular basis to ensure that medicines were appropriate to current conditions. Although written guidance for the use of medicine prescribed for use on an “as and when” required basis was not in place for each individual, it was also noted that medicines to alleviate/control agitation and similar conditions had been used sparingly. People livening in the home had been treated with kindness and respect. One person stated that they liked living in the home because “Everyone is very friendly” and said, “we can do what we like.” A visitor said they had “never witnessed anything untoward or overheard staff being disrespectful to residents.” Rivermead DS0000014953.V334865.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 12 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): Standards 12,13, 14 15. Quality in this outcome area is adequate. This judgement has been made using available evidence including a visit to this service. People living in the home had predominantly been supported to experience a lifestyle that, within the limitations of their abilities and needs, met their expectations. EVIDENCE: The people in living in the home had some form of cognitive impairment/short term memory loss. The arrangements for the day-to-day lifestyle in the home therefore were required to be extremely flexible. This had been well managed. It was noted that daily routines varied according to need. Meals were served at set times but these could be varied for individuals who wished to eat at other times. Similarly, getting up times and bedtimes were individual. Residents were free to move around the home as they chose and indeed if they had moved to another unit, their meal was served to them at that location rather than where they were usually accommodated. Arrangements for activities for stimulation and recreation had taken account of abilities. Activities included sing-a-longs, bingo, parties and such like but also Rivermead DS0000014953.V334865.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 13 small domestic tasks for those who wished to carry on as they had before admission to the home. It was a pity therefore that these efforts to afford choice and personal autonomy were marred by the systems to meet preferences for meals: Menus showed a varied and nutritious choice that included a choice of two meals at lunchtime. Notices was displayed in the units that showed each individual’s preferences for the forthcoming week. Given the extent of shortterm memory experienced by people living in the home, it is debateable whether this system had taken account of memory loss. Compliments were passed about the standard of meals, “The food is good and there is plenty of it and drinks too.” “Meals are very nice, you can eat what you want”. The mid-day meal was observed in progress. It was noted that at least one person was not served the meal recorded as their choice. The inspector noted this choice was not in the trolley that had been brought from the main kitchen. Staff serving this meal did not return to the kitchen to find out why the alternative meal had not been placed in the trolley. It later transpired that the alternate course was available in the main kitchen. It was noted that the cook had prepared liquidised food for those who required such a diet. Each portion had been liquidised separately to retain its original colour, so that it looked more appetising. Unfortunately the cook’s efforts were negated because staff were observed to mix the meal altogether as one when they prepared to feed people who could not manage this for themselves. One carer was observed to stand over the resident to feed them rather than to sit alongside, as is appropriate practice. Records and assessment of bedrooms showed that people moving into the home had been able to bring personal items with them. Visitors confirmed that they could call and see their relatives at any time. One stated, “The staff always make me welcome” and said that they were invited to attend planned entertainments in the home such as a recent tea dance. The majority of those living in the home were unable to manage their personal finances. It was explained, that those who wished to hold a little money because it had been their habit to do so were encouraged hold small sums, even if it meant that coins might be misplaced around the home. Rivermead DS0000014953.V334865.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 14 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): Standards 16,18 Quality in this outcome area is good. This judgement has been made using available evidence including a visit to this service. The home had taken action to prevent abuse of people living in the home when allegations had been made. EVIDENCE: Previous reports had established that the home had robust written complaints and protection procedures. In practice it was evident that the systems to enable people to raise concerns or to recognise if people were unhappy had been implemented fully. People living in the home who were able to contribute to the inspection said, “I would tell them if I was unhappy, but I don’t need to.” “They are nice to me and I can say if I am worried”. Given that the majority of those living in the home would have difficulty in raising concerns it was incumbent on staff to look for signs that all was not well. The inspection included observation of a staff handover between shifts. Information was shared about those living in the home and in particular indications that people were unhappy or ill. Strategies were discussed that would support staff to understand these indicators and what action to take to alleviate the concerns of people living in the home. The central complaints log was seen and showed that complaints were rare. Records indicated that acknowledgements, investigations and responses had Rivermead DS0000014953.V334865.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 15 been taken place for the three complaints made to the home since the last inspection. Notifications to the Commission since the last inspection showed the home had reported concerns of mistreatment/abuse to the Local Authority promptly. These had included assaults by one resident upon another and un-witnessed falls. Records seen at this inspection showed the home had taken appropriate action to refer a person who lived in the home for psychiatric assessment because of their repeated attacks on others. Shortly before this inspection, an allegation that a member of staff had physically and verbally assaulted a resident had been reported to the Local Authority. The written report showed that member of staff had taken two days to report the allegations. Once aware of the allegations the manager had reported the concerns promptly to the Local Authority and suspended the member of staff from duty pending an investigation. The manager also stated that she had advised the person making the allegation about the need to report such concerns promptly. The manager confirmed that training for staff in procedures for the Protection of Vulnerable Adults (POVA) was underway. Several members of staff had received this training and further training was planned for the rest of the team. Members of staff spoken to at this inspection were able to explain their understanding of these procedures. Three personnel files were assessed and showed that recruitment procedures were robust for the protection of vulnerable people. These had included obtaining the necessary checks from the Criminal Records Bureau, POVA register and references from previous employers before new employees had commenced work. Rivermead DS0000014953.V334865.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 16 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): Standards 19,26. Quality in this outcome area is good. This judgement has been made using available evidence including a visit to this service. The home provided people using the service with a clean, comfortable and safe environment that was suitable to their needs. EVIDENCE: The division of the building into smaller units enabled this large home to provide living areas that were homely in appearance. It also gave people a choice of seating and dining areas and opportunities to participate in various activities that took part around the building. There were many homely touches throughout the building that enhanced the homely atmosphere. Rivermead DS0000014953.V334865.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 17 A large inner courtyard type garden afforded an attractive outlook from each of the lounges. The area was mainly laid to lawn with shrubbery borders and raised flowerbeds that could be tended by those living in the home. Communal areas of the building and a range of bedrooms, bathrooms, toilets, sluice rooms and the laundry were assessed. Each of these areas was clean and orderly. Notices were posted in sluices and the laundry with regard to appropriate use of equipment, cleaning substances and in relation to infection control. The décor and furniture in bedrooms was of a good standard. Residents’ personal items were seen in the bedrooms. The décor in some parts of the communal areas was attractive but beginning to show signs of wear and tear as is inevitable in a building of these size and occupancy. Scratch marks were seen on doors and frames throughout the building, walls in two units required re-painting, as did areas of the corridors. Rivermead DS0000014953.V334865.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 18 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): Standards 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. People living in the home had been well cared for by a competent and committed team. Staff had been well supported by the management team to carry out the daily business of the home effectively. EVIDENCE: The home’s staff team was an asset to this home. Members of staff on duty, care and ancillary, were observed to treat people living in the home with kindness and skill. In conversation with the inspector, members of staff showed empathy and commitment to those in their care. People using the service were complimentary about personnel. “Staff are very nice and friendly”. “ Staff are pretty good and help when asked. They let you get on with things”. Visitors were also positive about the team. “They are marvellous”. “Kind and considerate”. Visitors to two people both stated that they wouldn’t want their relative living anywhere else. Information supplied by the provider showed that twenty members of staff had left since the last inspection and others had been employed to vacant posts. That said, a core of staff, who comprised the majority of the care team, had worked in the home for a significant time and were well versed in the home’s day-to-day routines and the needs of people living in the home. Rivermead DS0000014953.V334865.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 19 Records indicated that sufficient care staff had been rostered to care for people. The home also employed sufficient ancillary personnel; administrative, catering, domestic, laundry and maintenance so that the care team could concentrate their efforts to meet peoples’ personal care needs. A senior team was in place to support the manager and the team. Members of staff remarked that they felt well supported by the senior team, who were always available to provide guidance and reassurance if need be. Records indicated that the home had a comprehensive training programme. New starters undertook a detailed induction programme. In depth training/updates in key issues was provided to groups of staff throughout the year. Future training plans were also detailed and designed to maintain the skill level within the team as staff leave and new starters commence. The current level of staff with National Vocational Qualifications in care was 39 of the team. Recruitment procedures as outlined in section four were robust. Records indicated that equal opportunities procedures had been followed. External and internal applicants for jobs had completed written application forms, and attended for interviews, the results of which had been recorded. Rivermead DS0000014953.V334865.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 20 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): Standards 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 had been well managed to the benefit of all who lived, worked and visited the home. EVIDENCE: Previous reports had commented on the excellent managerial skills of the manager. This inspection corroborated this opinion. The manager evidently had high expectations of her staff and had sought and succeeded to guide them through her personal influence and role model. Staff spoke highly of the manager, her availability and support for the team. Visitors also praised the manager describing her as “ more like a friend.” “Nothing is too much trouble for her.” Rivermead DS0000014953.V334865.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 21 The manager was approachable on an informal basis through her “open door policy”. Other more formal strategies were in place to consult with peole living in the home and their relatives. The report and action plan of the most recent quality assurance process carried out in December 2006 was seen. It showed a high percentage of customer satisfaction. Regular group meetings had been arranged for those living in the home and their relatives. A visitor confirmed that they been invited to these meetings. Few people living in the home held any of their personal monies. Relatives in the main held this responsibility and left small sums of money with the home for routine purchases. BUPA’s systems to manage monies held on behalf of service users are thorough. Records seen showed that small sums of money were held on site. Most purchases were for services such as hairdressing chiropody treatment, newspapers and similar. Records showed that transactions for income and expenditure had been well maintained. Systems to manage health and safety throughout the home were also thorough. The corporate procedures were detailed, as were risk assessment and safety monitoring systems. Information provided pre-inspection showed that equipment had been regularly serviced and maintained. This was confirmed during the inspection by visual checks. Records indicated that staff had received appropriate training in safe working practices. Practice observed showed that members of staff were aware of safe practice in relation to moving and handling, infection control, administration of medicine and food hygiene. It was noted during the tour of the building that people living in the home could access disposable gloves. The manager reported there had been no dangerous occurrences as a result of this access but agreed to carry out a risk assessment on any potential risk. Rivermead DS0000014953.V334865.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 22 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 3 9 3 10 3 11 x DAILY LIFE AND SOCIAL ACTIVITIES Standard No Score 12 3 13 3 14 3 15 2 COMPLAINTS AND PROTECTION Standard No Score 16 3 17 x 18 3 3 x x x x x x 3 STAFFING Standard No Score 27 4 28 2 29 3 30 3 MANAGEMENT AND ADMINISTRATION Standard No 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 Score 4 x 3 x 3 x 3 3 Rivermead DS0000014953.V334865.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 23 Are there any outstanding requirements from the last inspection? There were no requirements from the previous report. 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 Refer to Standard OP15 Good Practice Recommendations The home should ensure that systems to ascertain and record the choices for meals made by those living in the home are suitable for residents who have short-term memory loss. Residents should receive meals recorded as chosen by them. People living in the home should be served meals that are appetising in appearance. In this instance, liquidised meals where all the portions have been mixed together as one should not be served. Members of staff should be reminded about the homes’ protection procedures, whistle blowing policy and the need to report allegations of abuse promptly, so that people living in the home are protected from the risk of abuse. A risk assessment should be carried in relation to the DS0000014953.V334865.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 24 2 OP15 3 OP18 4 OP38 Rivermead access of people living in the home to disposable gloves, to ensure they have been protected from harm. Rivermead DS0000014953.V334865.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 25 Commission for Social Care Inspection Bedfordshire & Luton Area Office Clifton House 4a Goldington Road Bedford MK40 3NF 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 Rivermead DS0000014953.V334865.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!