Inspection on 15/05/06 for Riverside Court

This inspection was carried out on 15th May 2006.

CSCI has not published a star rating for this report, though using similar criteria we estimate that the report is Adequate. 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

Riverside Court 25/08/09

Riverside Court 04/06/08

Riverside Court 21/11/07

Riverside Court 20/08/07

Riverside Court 27/02/07

Riverside Court 09/12/05

Riverside Court 22/08/05

Riverside Court 26/11/04

Riverside Court 01/06/04

Similar services:

Abbey The

Snydale Care Home

Hawkhills

Larchfield Manor

Beeches The - North Yorkshire County Council

The Grove Waltham

Carentan House

Ravensworth Lodge

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

CARE HOMES FOR OLDER PEOPLE Riverside Court The Croft Knottingley West Yorks WF11 9BL Lead Inspector Elizabeth Hendry Key Unannounced Inspection 15th May 2006 10:25 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 Riverside Court DS0000006212.V290430.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. Riverside Court DS0000006212.V290430.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 3 SERVICE INFORMATION Name of service Riverside Court Address The Croft Knottingley West Yorks WF11 9BL 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) 01977 673233 01977 673066 riversidecourt@craegmoor.co.uk Speciality Care (Rest Homes) Limited Ms Julie Douce Care Home 61 Category(ies) of Dementia (1), Dementia - over 65 years of age registration, with number (30), Mental disorder, excluding learning of places disability or dementia (1), Mental Disorder, excluding learning disability or dementia - over 65 years of age (30), Old age, not falling within any other category (31) Riverside Court DS0000006212.V290430.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 4 SERVICE INFORMATION Conditions of registration: 1. One place DE for named person Date of last inspection 9th December 2005 Brief Description of the Service: Riverside Court is a purpose built home which provides nursing care for up to 61 older people. The home is divided into two separate nursing units: a 31bedded unit providing general nursing care and a 30-bedded unit providing nursing care for the elderly mentally ill [dementia care]. Accommodation in each unit is located on two floors consisting of single en-suite bedrooms, communal sitting rooms and dining facilities for each unit. There is level access at the main entrance and a passenger lift allows easy access to the first floor accommodation. Riverside Court is situated in the Knottingley district of Wakefield. It is served by local rail and bus routes and has off-street car parking facilities at the front of the premises. As of the 1st June 2006 fees ranged from £359 to £558.80 per week dependent upon the assessed individual need. The home has a service user guide that provides information about their service for current and prospective residents. Riverside Court DS0000006212.V290430.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 5 SUMMARY This is an overview of what the inspector found during the inspection. This was the home’s first annual inspection, which took place on an unannounced basis between 10.25 hrs and 17.30 hrs. Two inspectors, Elizabeth Hendry and Gillian Walsh, undertook the site visit. As part of this key inspection, CSCI have had contact with the following people: residents, their relatives, the service provider, staff members, social workers and a GP. During the site visit records, observations and discussions with both residents and staff were undertaken. We sent out 12 resident questionnaires. At the time of writing this report 2 had been returned. In writing this report, information and evidence was not only obtained by way of visiting the home, but information and evidence was obtained from notifications sent to the CSCI since the last key inspection in December 2005 and the compliance visit in February 2006, questionnaires, complaints and the last inspection report. A number of concerns were raised during the inspection with regards to the lack of staff training, staffing levels and the lack of organised activities. What the service does well: What has improved since the last inspection? Since the last inspection there has been considerable improvement in the management of medication within the home. This was evident in the recording and storage of residents’ medication. The Registered Manager acknowledged this improvement and the commitment from members of staff in ensuring this improvement. Riverside Court DS0000006212.V290430.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. Riverside Court DS0000006212.V290430.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 Riverside Court DS0000006212.V290430.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 and 6 Quality in this outcome area is good. This judgement is based on evidence gathered both during and before the visit to this service. Residents move into the home following an assessment of their health, personal and social care needs. EVIDENCE: This home does not provide intermediate care. The home’s terms and conditions of residence and resident contract identify what is and what is not included in the weekly bed fee. Information regarding the trial period, notice of termination of contract and services available within the home is also included within the contract and service user guide. Care plans viewed identified the personal care needs and abilities of each resident, and the methods in which care staff can meet these needs. The Riverside Court DS0000006212.V290430.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 9 Registered Manager and qualified nursing staff spoken to during the site visit confirmed that residents’ care plans are developed based on the pre-admission assessment, which is undertaken by a senior member of staff. The homes pre-admission assessment for one resident was viewed and found to determine the level of need in the following areas: personal care, mobility, communication, family involvement, medication and medical treatment. Care management assessments were present within some residents’ files. Riverside Court DS0000006212.V290430.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 Quality in this outcome area is poor. This judgement is based on evidence gathered both during and before the visit of this service. Residents’ health, personal and social care needs are set out in an individual plan of care but omissions and lack of detail were evident. Residents are not fully protected by the home’s medication policies and procedures, as some administration errors were identified. Records viewed identified that residents’ health care needs are met. Residents are not always cared for in ways that maintain their dignity and afford respect. EVIDENCE: Six individual care plans were inspected on a sample basis. The plan contained relevant information on the care required to meet the resident’s health and personal care needs but omissions and lack of detail were evident. For Riverside Court DS0000006212.V290430.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 11 example, manual handling assessments did not contain sufficient information to ensure the safety and well being of residents when being moved by staff. More information was required on how social care needs are to be met and family contacts. Of the six care plans examined, all showed signs of regular review with evidence of resident and, where appropriate, family involvement, however risk assessments did not contain sufficient information for staff to follow to prevent residents being placed at unnecessary risk. Individual care plans held records of healthcare appointments, however detailed information of their outcomes were lacking. Residents spoken with spoke positively about their personal care needs being met. Two resident questionnaires were returned, both identified that they “usually receive the care and support needed”. Of the five relative questionnaires returned, all were satisfied with the overall level of care provided. Daily records had not been consistently completed and did not contain sufficient information as to the individual’s activities for the day and staff’s observations. The recording, administration and storage of medication were inspected on a sample basis. Records were kept of medication being received into and leaving the home and appropriate arrangements had been made for the disposal of the medication of residents receiving nursing care. Medication administration records were found to not always be completed at the time of administration and, as a result, errors have occurred in the past. The Registered Manager confirmed that only qualified nursing staff who have received training in the safe handling of medication are involved in the management of residents’ medication. Since notification was sent to CSCI in March 2006 of medication errors occurring, the home has significantly reviewed their procedures to ensure the safety of residents. The registered manager spoke of residents receiving regular medication reviews with their chosen GP. One resident spoken with said they were “generally happy with the home, however the staff always seem rushed off their feet and that I often have to wait for long periods of time before anyone pays me any attention”. Another resident spoken with said that they were “well cared for and have everything that they need”. Staff were observed propping bedroom doors open with a chair, often occupied by the resident. Staff were also overheard referring to resident’s personal abilities in an inappropriate manner, a practice which does not maintain confidentiality and privacy. Riverside Court DS0000006212.V290430.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 12 Continence protectors were conspicuously placed on some chairs within the communal lounges. This practice does not promote the dignity of those residents. Riverside Court DS0000006212.V290430.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 Quality in this outcome area is adequate. This judgement is based on evidence gathered both during and before the visit to this service. Discussions with residents and relatives described how, on the whole, the lifestyle they experienced within the home met their expectations and preferences and satisfied their social and religious interests and needs, with the exception of the availability of activities. However, increasing levels of choice of activities could further improve the quality of life. Residents maintained contact with family and friends and members of the local community as they wished. Residents,, on the whole, were not assisted to exercise choice and control over their lives. Residents received a varied diet, although improvements to the dining rooms would make this a more pleasing experience. Riverside Court DS0000006212.V290430.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 14 EVIDENCE: Activities available within the home are limited, with little provision for more dependent residents to participate. The Registered Manager spoke of an activities co-ordinator organising weekly activities, however no evidence of residents’ personal preferences being sought could be found. Within those care plans sampled, individual interests had been recorded, however within daily records there was no reference made to what activities had been undertaken. On the day of the site visit there were no organised activities taking place. Many residents were sitting alone in their bedrooms with little or no stimulation. Staff members appeared very busy and, as a result, those sitting within the communal lounges were also left alone for long periods of time without any conversation or input from members of the care team. One staff member spoken with said that it was not their role to organise and deliver activities. A resident who had a good level of mobility spoke of visiting the local shops and town independently on a regular basis and of staff encouraging him to do this. Of the two resident questionnaires returned, both stated that sometimes there are activities arranged by the home that they are able to take part in. Throughout the site visit, residents’ family and friends were visiting. A relative spoke of the staff always making them feel very welcome at any time of the day and going out of their way to provide additional support and flexibility in order to accommodate visits out of the home. Discussions with residents and relatives were in the main positive about the food, confirming a wide range of choice and all meals being tasty and of good quality. Of the two questionnaires returned, residents identified meals were always or usually good. The presentation of the dining rooms could be improved by replacing worn tables and chairs, and ensuring the cleanliness of the rooms is maintained. During the site visit, it was observed that those residents requiring a greater level of care or who had speech difficulties were not offered the same choices as those more able, for example, regarding what clothes to wear, where they would prefer to sit and what they would like to eat. Riverside Court DS0000006212.V290430.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 15 Complaints and Protection The intended outcomes for Standards 16 - 18 are: 16. 17. 18. Service users and their relatives and friends are confident that their complaints will be listened to, taken seriously and acted upon. Service users’ legal rights are protected. Service users are protected from abuse. The Commission considers Standards 16 and 18 the key standards to be inspected at least once during a 12 month period. JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for the following standard(s): 16 and 18 Quality in this outcome area is adequate. This judgement has been made from evidence gathered both during and before the visit to this service. Residents and relatives could be confident their complaints would be listened to and acted upon. Staff had little understanding of the procedures to be followed should they suspect any abuse at the home, however information gathered prior to the site visit indicates that local authority procedures are followed when an issue arises. EVIDENCE: Of the two resident questionnaires and the five relative questionnaires returned, all but one knew how to complain and all seven knew who to speak to if they weren’t happy. There was a detailed record of complaints held within the home, with sufficient information regarding the nature of the complaint, timescale and the action taken. A complaint received by CSCI was found to have been logged within the home’s complaints book and evidence of a thorough investigation was apparent. A copy of the Wakefield adult protection policies and procedures was available within the Manager’s office. Staff spoken to were unaware of the correct procedures to follow when reporting instances of possible abuse, however from previous adult protection alerts it is clear that, when needed, staff are able to Riverside Court DS0000006212.V290430.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 16 appropriately refer the matter on to the appropriate agencies. Training records identified a lack of adult protection training, of the four staff files examined during the site visit, no one had undertaken any adult protection or abuse awareness training. Since the site visit the Registered Manager has organised adult protection training for a large proportion of staff. The Registered Manager spoke of staff being reluctant to undertake training despite a varied programme of courses available to all members of staff. Enhanced criminal records bureau checks and POVA First checks were absent for one of the four care staff files sampled. The home’s policies and procedures regarding adult protection are clear, however no evidence of recent review or of staff having read the documents could be found. At the time of writing this report the home has no outstanding adult protection alerts. Riverside Court DS0000006212.V290430.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 17 Environment The intended outcomes for Standards 19 – 26 are: 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. Service users live in a safe, well-maintained environment. Service users have access to safe and comfortable indoor and outdoor communal facilities. Service users have sufficient and suitable lavatories and washing facilities. Service users have the specialist equipment they require to maximise their independence. Service users’ own rooms suit their needs. Service users live in safe, comfortable bedrooms with their own possessions around them. Service users live in safe, comfortable surroundings. The home is clean, pleasant and hygienic. The Commission considers Standards 19 and 26 the key standards to be inspected at least once during a 12 month period. JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for the following standard(s): 19 and 26 Quality in this outcome area is adequate. This judgement is based on evidence gathered both during and before the visit to this service. The decoration and furnishing of the home was, on the whole, of a reasonable standard but improvements to the cleanliness and decoration of communal dining rooms is still required to ensure it is well maintained and safe for residents. EVIDENCE: The home’s premises were found to be suitable for its stated purpose. The premises are in keeping with the local community and have a style that reflects the home’s purpose. Riverside Court DS0000006212.V290430.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 18 Many residents spoken to said that their bedrooms were comfortable and that they had everything they needed. One resident spoken to said that they find the home perfect for their needs. Feedback from two questionnaires identified the home as being “usually” fresh and clean. Refurbishments and redecoration since the last inspection have included replacing a broken internal door and the commencement of the redecoration of a first floor dining room. The overall cleanliness of the home requires attention, sluice rooms were found to be dirty, many of the residents’ en suite facilities, easy chairs, carpets and walking frames were in need of a through deep clean. Toilet seats in a number of en suites were still in need of replacement despite this being highlighted during the last inspection. During the last visit to the home, the door of one en suite on the lower EMI unit had dropped at the hinge and could not be closed or opened without difficulty; this was still apparent on this visit. Clinical waste bins were seen to be overflowing and unlocked. Offensive odours were not present within living and dining rooms, however they were present within some bedrooms and communal bathrooms. Only one of the bedrooms inspected had any hand washing soap in situ which poses the risk of the spread of infection. Staff were observed wearing gloves and aprons within the corridors and within many different residents’ bedrooms which negates the positive effect of wearing this equipment. Of those staff files sampled, no-one had attended any infection control training, however since the site visit the registered manager has arranged for those who require this training to undertake it. Laundry facilities were sited on the lower ground floor away from food preparation and storage areas. Hand washing facilities were provided. A large improvement has been made to the laundry room since the last inspection. It was found to be clean and well organised. Riverside Court DS0000006212.V290430.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 19 Staffing The intended outcomes for Standards 27 – 30 are: 27. 28. 29. 30. Service users’ needs are met by the numbers and skill mix of staff. Service users are in safe hands at all times. Service users are supported and protected by the home’s recruitment policy and practices. Staff are trained and competent to do their jobs. The Commission consider all the above are key standards to be inspected at least once during a 12 month period. JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for the following standard(s): 27,28,29 and 30 Quality in this outcome area is poor. This judgement has been made from evidence gathered both during and before the visit to this service. Residents’ needs were not sufficiently met by the numbers and skill mix of staff. Residents were not always in safe hands. Residents are not fully protected by the home’s recruitment policy and practices. Staff are not sufficiently trained and competent to do their jobs. EVIDENCE: A tour of the home commenced at 10.25am, during which time it was noted that some residents were still waiting for assistance to get dressed and others still hadn’t had their breakfast at 11am. Some residents felt that there was not enough staff to meet the needs of the current number of residents; one resident commented, “They always seem so busy, I don’t like to bother them”. A family member spoken with said “I do Riverside Court DS0000006212.V290430.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 20 feel that they should have maybe one more carer on duty, they are always so busy”. Five questionnaires returned to CSCI indicated that, in their opinion, there is not always sufficient numbers of staff on duty, one questionnaire said there were usually enough staff available when needed, while another said there was always someone available. Observations made during the site visit support these statements. While viewing a first floor lounge, one resident spoke of needing pain relief, twenty minutes passed before a member of staff passed the lounge so assistance could be sought in obtaining this pain relief. When questioned, staff said that they were so busy because someone had called in sick. When asked about staffing levels within the home, the Registered Manager said that she felt that there was sufficient levels of staff on duty to ensure everyone received the level of care they required. The manager described the staffing arrangements; a nurse is on duty on each shift to assist within each unit, in addition to two carers. The staff rota confirmed this. The Registered Manager spoke of the home’s recruitment procedure and induction process. Records viewed confirmed that these policies are not always adhered to. Four staff files were inspected on a sample basis. Enhanced criminal records bureau checks and POVA First checks were in place for three members of staff. One member of staff was found to be working within the home without any enhanced criminal record check or POVA first check, the registered manager later confirmed in writing that this individual would not be working at the home until one had been received. Information received prior to the site visit indicates that only 2 of all care staff hold NVQ level 2 in Care. At the time of the site visit, the home had no monitoring systems in place for identifying staff training needs. Since the site visit, historical training records have been compiled and forwarded to CSCI. These records indicate a significant shortfall in key mandatory training, in particular manual handling, and a lack of forward planning. Twenty-eight members of staff out of 56 have not received any training in the safe movement and handling of residents which places them at considerable risk of injury to both the resident and the member of staff. Concerns were raised with the Registered Manager when a member of staff spoken with said that they were only part-time so there was no point in undertaking any training. Staff files viewed identified that one member of staff who has been working at the home for eighteen months had not undertaken any certified induction training. Staff training records identified a lack of training in many key areas such as manual handling, fire safety, adult protection, basic food hygiene and infection control. Riverside Court DS0000006212.V290430.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 21 Some staff were observed approaching residents in a respectful manner and respecting individual preferences, however one member of staff was seen to be using inappropriate language when referring to a resident. Staff spoken to said that they receive informal supervision and support from their colleagues and formal supervision on a regular basis from the Registered Manager, no supervision records were viewed during the site visit. Riverside Court DS0000006212.V290430.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 Quality in this outcome area is adequate. This judgement is based on evidence gathered both during and before the visit to this service. Residents live in a home that is appropriately managed. Discussions with residents and relatives identified the home was run in the best interests of residents, with formal quality monitoring. Residents’ financial interests are safeguarded. The health, safety and welfare of residents and staff is not always protected, improvements are needed to ensure their full their protection. Riverside Court DS0000006212.V290430.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 23 EVIDENCE: The Registered Manager is a qualified nurse with many years’ care and management experience. While her role is not hands on, she endeavours to undertake practical work as and when needed to ensure the efficient running of the home. No financial records relating to both the home and the residents’ finances were inspected on this occasion, however no incidents surrounding the management of residents’ monies has been reported to CSCI. The Registered Manager confirmed that only the administrator and herself has access to residents’ monies held within the home. The home has a quality assurance and quality monitoring system, which is based on seeking the views of residents. Some residents spoken with said that the manager walks around the home on a regular basis to spend time and talk with them about the running of the home. The responsible individual visits the home on an unannounced monthly basis to perform an audit, the findings of which are then passed onto CSCI. The Registered Manager spoke of using the inspection report as a working document to address shortfalls in the service. When the building was inspected, no fire exits were blocked and the fire extinguishers seen had been serviced. Of those staff files sampled, three out of four had undertaken fire safety training. Information provided following the site visit indicates that there is a need for additional health and safety training. Information provided to the CSCI identified servicing of the gas installations, central heating system, fire equipment, portable electrical appliances, hoists and call systems. The home has access to a pool of maintenance workers who oversee the day to day repairs to the home. Access to the home is via the main entrance, there are appropriate measures in place to ensure the security of the premises and prevent intruders. Window restrictors were in situ within all bedrooms to prevent falls. Notifiable incidents are being appropriately reported to CSCI and fully investigated. The water temperature record identified water temperatures were checked on a sample weekly basis. One bath water outlet inspected was 41°C, which is identified as a safe temperature for residents. Information provided to the CSCI prior to the site visit indicated written assessments of control of substances hazardous to health had been completed and a contract was in Riverside Court DS0000006212.V290430.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 24 place for the disposal of soiled waste and sharps. Cleaning products and chemicals hazardous to health were found to be stored appropriately within a locked cupboard. During the site visit staff were observed performing unsafe manual handling manoeuvres on a number of residents. Of the staff files sampled, no one had attended any manual handling training. Individual care plans did not contain sufficient assessment or instruction for staff to follow to safely move residents. This practice puts both residents and staff at great risk of personal injury. An immediate requirement was issued at the time of the site visit to ensure that only those members of staff who have undertaken appropriate training are involved in manual handling. Since the visit, the Registered Manager has arranged for staff to undertake training in manual handling. Riverside Court DS0000006212.V290430.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 25 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 2 8 3 9 2 10 1 11 X DAILY LIFE AND SOCIAL ACTIVITIES Standard No Score 12 2 13 3 14 2 15 2 COMPLAINTS AND PROTECTION Standard No Score 16 3 17 X 18 2 2 X X X X X X 1 STAFFING Standard No Score 27 2 28 2 29 1 30 2 MANAGEMENT AND ADMINISTRATION Standard No 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 Score 3 X 3 X 3 X X 1 Riverside Court DS0000006212.V290430.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 26 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 OP7 Regulation 12(1)(a) 15(2)(b) Requirement That written care plans must be completed to cover all areas of need, reviewed regularly and followed. Daily records should also reflect, in detail, the general condition of the resident and any care they have received. Previous timescale of 31/01/06 not met. An accurate record must be maintained of the administration of medication to residents. Previous timescale of 09/12/06 not met. The registered person must make arrangements to ensure that residents’ privacy and dignity is maintained. Previous timescale of 31/01/06 not met. The registered person must make arrangements for resident’s social and recreational needs to be assessed and met appropriately. Previous timescale of 31/01/06 not met. The registered person shall make DS0000006212.V290430.R01.S.doc Timescale for action 31/07/06 2. OP9 13(2) 31/05/06 3. OP10 12(4)(a) 31/05/06 4. OP12 16(m)(n) 31/07/06 5. OP18 13(6) 31/07/06 Page 27 Riverside Court Version 5.2 4. OP19 23(4)(c)(i ) 5. OP26 12(1a)16( 2j&k) 23(d) arrangements to ensure residents are fully protected from harm or abuse. Previous timescale of 31/01/06 not met. The registered person must make adequate arrangements for the containment of any fire. Service users’ bedroom doors or any fire door should not be propped open. Previous timescale of 31/01/06 not met. The home must be kept clean throughout. All staff to undergo infection control training. Previous timescale of 22/08/05 not met. 31/05/06 31/07/06 6. OP22 23(2)(b) 7. OP29 17 8. OP38 13 Footrests designed to be fitted to wheelchairs when used by 31/07/06 residents must be so fitted where this is appropriate to the residents needs. The home must work within 15/05/06 department of health guidance. Ensuring POVA and CRB clearance checks are undertaken on all new members of staff. The registered person shall make 31/07/06 suitable arrangements to provide a safe system for moving and handling residents. (Provide all staff with manual handling training.) 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 OP10 Good Practice Recommendations Provide staff with training in maintaining residents privacy DS0000006212.V290430.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 28 Riverside Court 2. 3. 4. OP30 OP30 OP30 and dignity including communication skills Records relating to staff training need to be better organised. Staff undertake first aid training Those involved in the preparation of meals and drinks undertake Basic Food Hygiene Training Riverside Court DS0000006212.V290430.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 29 Commission for Social Care Inspection Brighouse Area Office Park View House Woodvale Office Park Woodvale Road Brighouse HD6 4AB 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 Riverside Court DS0000006212.V290430.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 30 - 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!