Inspection on 16/05/06 for Rosebank

This inspection was carried out on 16th 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 no outstanding requirements from the previous inspection report, but made 7 statutory requirements (actions the home must comply with) as a result of this inspection.

Other inspections for this house

Rosebank 28/04/09

Rosebank 26/11/08

Rosebank 03/05/07

Rosebank 06/12/05

Rosebank 12/08/05

Rosebank 23/02/05

Rosebank 11/08/04

Rosebank 19/03/04

Similar services:

Clover House

Parkside

Park Lodge

Mere Hall View

St Bonaventures

Hudson Road

Whitewalls

Home Farm

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

CARE HOME ADULTS 18-65 Rosebank 52 Leyland Road Southport Merseyside PR9 9JQ Lead Inspector Mr Paul Kenyon Unannounced Inspection 16th May and 8th June 2006 09:30a Rosebank DS0000005359.V295881.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 1 The Commission for Social Care Inspection aims to: • • • • Put the people who use social care first Improve services and stamp out bad practice Be an expert voice on social care Practise what we preach in our own organisation Reader Information Document Purpose Author Audience Further copies from Copyright Inspection Report CSCI General Public 0870 240 7535 (telephone order line) This report is copyright Commission for Social Care Inspection (CSCI) and may only be used in its entirety. Extracts may not be used or reproduced without the express permission of CSCI www.csci.org.uk Internet address Rosebank DS0000005359.V295881.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 2 This is a report of an inspection to assess whether services are meeting the needs of people who use them. The legal basis for conducting inspections is the Care Standards Act 2000 and the relevant National Minimum Standards for this establishment are those for Care Homes for Adults 18-65. They can be found at www.dh.gov.uk or obtained from The Stationery Office (TSO) PO Box 29, St Crispins, Duke Street, Norwich, NR3 1GN. Tel: 0870 600 5522. Online ordering: www.tso.co.uk/bookshop This report is a public document. Extracts may not be used or reproduced without the prior permission of the Commission for Social Care Inspection. Rosebank DS0000005359.V295881.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 3 SERVICE INFORMATION Name of service Rosebank Address 52 Leyland Road Southport Merseyside PR9 9JQ 01704 535548 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) info@leylandhouse.com Mr Gerard Cunningham Mrs Carol Hall Care Home 17 Category(ies) of Learning disability (17) registration, with number of places Rosebank DS0000005359.V295881.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 4 SERVICE INFORMATION Conditions of registration: 1. 2. Service users to include up to 17 LD To include up to 3 named service users with Mental Health needs Date of last inspection 6th December 2005 Brief Description of the Service: Rosebank, also known as Leyland House is situated on Leyland Rd in Southport, close to the coast road. A private individual, Mr Gerard Cunningham, owns the service. It offers care and accommodation to up to 17 residents who have a learning disability. Louise Dorman is the current Acting Manager. The home is a three-storey property in a residential area. The home has good access to local transport links, with buses to Southport town centre, which is approximately ten minutes journey. Transport to Lancashire & Liverpool is also accessible. The service has its own minibus as current residents have some mobility difficulties & having their own transport allows much greater freedom in travel & accessing community facilities. Parking is available at the front of the building. There is a large garden to the rear of the home. Weekly fees at present start from £325 per week although this can increase dependent on the needs of residents. Rosebank DS0000005359.V295881.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 5 SUMMARY This is an overview of what the inspector found during the inspection. This visit was a key inspection and was unannounced without the home having any knowledge of the visit beforehand. The inspection took place over two days. The second visit was made to enable the Inspector to meet with the Acting Manager to discuss various issues and provide feedback about the inspection given that she was not available during the first part of the inspection. In total the visit took seven hours. The inspection used National Minimum Standards for Younger Adults to assess the quality of care. Four service users had detailed discussions with the Inspector and their comments are included within this report. In addition to this, a tour of the premises was undertaken as well as an examination of various records relating to the care provided. The Inspector spoke with the three members of staff on duty and spoke in detail with two of them relating to issues such as their experience, training, the needs of service users and issues concerning the prevention of abuse. What the service does well: The service is good at providing information about the aims and objectives of the service but this could be further developed by taking the communication needs of residents into account and this is recommended. The service is good at enabling residents to make decisions affecting their lives. The service is good at taking the risks faced by residents in their daily routines into account. The service is good at ensuring that some residents pursue occupation as they wish. The service is good at enabling residents to maintain links with families and friends. The service is good at providing meals in line with the preferences of residents. The service is good at determining the level of support needed by residents and taking their independence into account. The service is good at providing information into how a complaint can be made and residents are clear about the action they need to take if situation arose to express their concerns. Rosebank DS0000005359.V295881.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 6 The service is good at protecting residents through the policies and procedures it has. The service is good at providing a clean and hygienic environment for residents. The service is good at ensuring that staff receive training and have planned future training for the staff team. Comments made by residents to the Inspector during the inspection included: ‘I like it’ ‘The staff are nice’ ‘On the whole touchwood things are going well’ ‘I feel safe, very much so’ ‘I have confidence in the staff’ ‘I like the staff they help me’ ‘I like it here better than the place I used to live’ ‘I do allsorts of things’ ‘I can get to see my mum and dad through the week’ ‘Food is alright and nice’ ‘I feel safe here’ ‘Yes I like it here I have been here a long tome’ ‘I want a job and staff are helping me to get one’ ‘I deal with my own money and tablets’ ‘With food I get what I want’ ‘I feel safe here’ What has improved since the last inspection? The service has now produced clear care plans that are detailed and that they reflect the needs of residents. The service now provides a refurbished environment that is well decorated and provides a good standard to all. The Acting Manager has now submitted an application form to the Commission for Social Care Inspection with a view to being approved as the Registered Manager. The Owner of the home now submits reports to the Acting Manager and the Commission for Social Care Inspection about the quality of the care and support provided. The service has now had its electrical wiring and gas systems checked by a qualified individual to confirm the safety of these systems and have provided evidence of such checks. Rosebank DS0000005359.V295881.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 7 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. Rosebank DS0000005359.V295881.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 8 DETAILS OF INSPECTOR FINDINGS CONTENTS Choice of Home (Standards 1–5) Individual Needs and Choices (Standards 6-10) Lifestyle (Standards 11-17) Personal and Healthcare Support (Standards 18-21) Concerns, Complaints and Protection (Standards 22-23) Environment (Standards 24-30) Staffing (Standards 31-36) Conduct and Management of the Home (Standards 37 – 43) Scoring of Outcomes Statutory Requirements Identified During the Inspection Rosebank DS0000005359.V295881.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 9 Choice of Home The intended outcomes for Standards 1 – 5 are: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Prospective service users have the information they need to make an informed choice about where to live. Prospective users’ individual aspirations and needs are assessed. Prospective service users know that the home that they will choose will meet their needs and aspirations. Prospective service users have an opportunity to visit and to “test drive” the home. Each service user has an individual written contract or statement of terms and conditions with the home. The Commission consider Standard 2 the key standard to be inspected at least once during a 12 month period. JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for the following standard(s): 1 and 2 Service users benefit from having information provided to them although it is recommended that this be devised into a format appropriate to their individual communication needs. No judgement is made on the assessments of individuals prior to them coming to live at Rosebank given that there have been no new admissions since 2004. EVIDENCE: Quality in this outcome area is adequate. This judgement has been made using available evidence including a site visit to the service. A service user guide and statement of purpose is available. This includes all the details required in order to provide resdeints or their families with what they can expect from the service. It is only available in printed form and does not necessarily meet the communication needs of all resdeints. It is recommended that appropriate formats are devised in order to meet these needs. Assessments were not assessed on this occasion given that the turnover of residents is low and the last admission occurred in 2004. Rosebank DS0000005359.V295881.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 10 Individual Needs and Choices The intended outcomes for Standards 6 – 10 are: 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. Service users know their assessed and changing needs and personal goals are reflected in their individual Plan. Service users make decisions about their lives with assistance as needed. Service users are consulted on, and participate in, all aspects of life in the home. Service users are supported to take risks as part of an independent lifestyle. Service users know that information about them is handled appropriately, and that their confidences are kept. The Commission considers Standards 6, 7 and 9 the key standards to be inspected at least once during a 12 month period. JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for the following standard(s): 6,7 and 9 Residents benefit from having their needs included in a personal plan which is detailed, linked to their needs and subject to review. Residents are not provided with the opportunity to be involved with the drawing up of the plan. Residents have the opportunity to make decisions about their lives yet would benefit from the inclusion of advocates. The risks faced by residents as part of their daily routines are taken into account. EVIDENCE: Quality in this outcome area is adequate. This judgement has been made using available evidence including a visit to the service. A requirement at the last inspection highlighted that care plans were not sufficiently detailed enough. This inspection found that all residents have a care plan and that these are maintained in a safe and secure area. Two members of staff were able to confirm that they use the care plans on a regular basis and were also able to confirm that they had seen information included within each plan. All care plans have been re-devised and this was done in February 2006 under the guide of the Acting Manager. All care plans are detailed and provide staff Rosebank DS0000005359.V295881.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 11 with the information they need to provide support. Residents confirmed their needs during their discussions with the Inspector and this was reflected within their care plans. Two residents were asked whether they had seen their care plan or knew what was in them. Neither resident could, yet one individual was aware that staff did make records. The involvement of residents in care plans and evidence to confirm this is raised as a requirement in this report. Four residents were asked about finances and their own monies. All were able to confirm that they had money when they needed it and that staff would keep some of their monies secure in a safe. In addition to this, evidence was available to suggest that all residents had a bank account and these had been in operation for some time. Advocacy services have not been introduced into Rosebank. This service would provide independent support for residents, in particular those who do not have next of kin. It is recommended that advocacy service be contacted and that advocacy is developed for residents within the home. Risk Assessments are available and up to date. Two residents confirmed that they are able to access the local community independently and were happy with this arrangement. One resident confirmed that she needed staff assistance to go out to local facilities and she appeared quite happy with this and gave an account suggesting that this was a regular event for her. A staff member on duty confirmed the routines pursued by this individual and risk assessments confirmed that details that residents had suggested. Rosebank DS0000005359.V295881.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 12 Lifestyle The intended outcomes for Standards 11 - 17 are: 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. Service users have opportunities for personal development. Service users are able to take part in age, peer and culturally appropriate activities. Service users are part of the local community. Service users engage in appropriate leisure activities. Service users have appropriate personal, family and sexual relationships. Service users’ rights are respected and responsibilities recognised in their daily lives. Service users are offered a healthy diet and enjoy their meals and mealtimes. The Commission considers Standards 12, 13, 15, 16 and 17 the key standards to be inspected at least once during a 12 month period. JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for the following standard(s): 12,13,15,16 and 17 Residents benefit from being given the opportunity to take part in activities either independently or with staff support in the community if they so wish. Residents benefit from being able to maintain family relationships. The responsibilities in daily living are provided to residents in the main yet more evidence of all residents being involved in routines is recommended and it is required that all residents are given the opportunity to lock their bedroom doors. EVIDENCE: Quality in this outcome area is adequate. This judgement has been made using available evidence including a visit to the service. The Inspector spoke with four residents in detail during the inspection. All confirmed that they were able to pursue activities out in the community with or without staff support (as determined by risk assessments). One individual stated that she went to college and ‘enjoyed it’. Another individual aspires to getting a job in a local pub and said that ‘staff are helping me with this’. Two other persons pursue their own activities. One stated that he was able to get out and about himself and was happy with this arrangement. Another stated Rosebank DS0000005359.V295881.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 13 that she had her own routines with a staff member on a weekly basis and again was satisfied with this. The majority of residents either access the community or have access to the Activities co-ordinator employed by the home. Records suggested that some residents have regular, almost daily activities in place for their using local facilities. Two individuals were noted to have limited access to the community. This was linked to their personal choice and was reflected in their care plans. The work done by the Activities co-ordinator is reflected in individual activity records for each person. These contained reference to in-house activities as well as excursions into the wider community. All residents confirmed that the home has a minibus. One person preferred to use public transport and all individuals confirmed that they had bus passes. The location of the home is such that the main town of Southport is easily accessible. All four residents confirmed that they have links with their family and friends. One stated that she wrote to four of her friends regularly. Another individual stated that his brother lived in London yet he was able to telephone him. Two individuals confirmed that they went to see their parents a few times a week. During the inspection, one person was left to see her parents and was receiving staff support to do this. The other individual also confirmed that she saw her parents through the week but would not be going this week because they were on holiday. Some residents are involved in routines and others are not. There was evidence that some individuals are able to assist in activities such as cooking. During the inspection, one person was seen to be assisted by staff in helping preparing lunch. The person confirmed that she did this regularly. This involvement also extends to others. For everyone else, there was no evidence that they were involved in other activities such as assisting in the laundering of their clothes or maintaining the cleanliness of their rooms. This is raised as a recommendation in this report. All bedrooms have locks with the exception of one. The individual concerned was not aware that she could have a key. It is required that a lock is fitted to that bedroom and that a key is provided to this person. Comments from residents about food included: ‘It is nice’ ‘It is alright’ ‘It is lovely’. All residents confirmed that they knew what was for lunch and all concurred on the meal that was to be provided. An ongoing menu is available and this included meals out as well as takeaway meals purchased. No specific dietary needs were identified with the exception of one individual who wished to lose weight. Meals include at least one cooked meal and drinks are available. Rosebank DS0000005359.V295881.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 14 During the inspection, one resident was assisting staff to prepare lunch. The Inspector directly observed this with the resident making a significant contribution to this. The individual stated that she did this regularly and enjoyed helping with meals. Other residents confirmed that they had the opportunity to do the same. A dining room is available although it was noticed that one resident who was late for lunch had a meal retained for him and he chose to eat this on his own. All residents confirmed that they could have a choice of meals if they did not like the main item on the menu. All residents are able to eat without assistance. Refrigerators and freezers were noted to be well stocked. Since the last inspection, the kitchen has been redesigned. A breakfast bar is available enabling resident to sit, have a drink and talk to staff. Rosebank DS0000005359.V295881.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 15 Personal and Healthcare Support The intended outcomes for Standards 18 - 21 are: 18. 19. 20. 21. Service users receive personal support in the way they prefer and require. Service users’ physical and emotional health needs are met. Service users retain, administer and control their own medication where appropriate, and are protected by the home’s policies and procedures for dealing with medicines. The ageing, illness and death of a service user are handled with respect and as the individual would wish. The Commission considers Standards 18, 19, and 20 the key standards to be inspected at least once during a 12 month period. JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for the following standard(s): 18,19 and 20 Residents benefit from a service that enables them to determine how they wish to be supported. The health of residents is in the main met with the exception of one instance. Medication systems are not always accountable. EVIDENCE: Quality in this outcome area is adequate. This judgement has been made using available evidence including a visit to the service. One resident was able to confirm in detail about how he was supported by staff. He stated that he was independent in having a bath or a wash and that staff respected this. He knew that staff were available to assist but was happy with current arrangements. All residents confirmed that staff were ‘helpful’ to them and ‘nice’. Care plans noted the degree to which residents needed support. All contained reference to staff prompting residents rather than providing direct care. One resident stated that ‘I get up and sort myself out’ another stated that she needed some help. Records were available to suggest that the health and emotional needs of residents were met. Appointments had been undertaken for all residents relating to various dental, GP and other medical service visits. One individual has a health condition that requires monitoring and review from a GP. Staff meticulously monitor and record any events affecting this health condition yet Rosebank DS0000005359.V295881.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 16 no review had been made with a GP to review this for some time. This is raised as a requirement in this report. All medications are appropriately locked away and are in the main accountable. There were no omissions in signatures noted on medication records yet there was no evidence that all received medications had been signed to confirm receipt. This is raised as a requirement in this report. One individual confirmed that she deals with her own medication. The Acting Manager also confirmed this. This suggested that a degree of independence had been offered to this individual although it was not considered appropriate at this time for this to be extended to others given their needs. No risk assessment had been completed to confirm that this person could safely self-administer medication and this is raised as a requirement in this report. Rosebank DS0000005359.V295881.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 17 Concerns, Complaints and Protection The intended outcomes for Standards 22 – 23 are: 22. 23. Service users feel their views are listened to and acted on. Service users are protected from abuse, neglect and self-harm. The Commission considers Standards 22, and 23 the key standards to be inspected at least once during a 12 month period. JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for the following standard(s): 22 and 23 Residents benefit from a service that will listen to complaints if the need arises. Residents are protected by policies and procedures within the home relating to abuse but are not protected by the recruitment process. EVIDENCE: Quality in this outcome area is adequate. This judgement has been made using available evidence including a visit to the service. A complaints procedure is available and this includes reference to the Commission for Social Care Inspection. The home had a complaints record although no complaints had been received by the home for some time. All residents were asked if they had any complaints and none did. All stated that they would see staff or the Acting Manager and felt confident that any problems would be sorted out. As with the statement of purpose, it is recommended that the complaints procedure be devised in a format to suit the communication needs of all residents. Two members of staff were interviewed during the inspection. One confirmed that she had had abuse awareness training and the other confirmed she had not. Both were aware of the whistle blowing procedure. A whistle blowing procedure is available and makes reference to the role of the Commission for Social Care Inspection. Four residents confirmed that they felt safe in Rosebank. One said ‘I do not wake up in the morning with any worries’. The home has information on abuse awareness and types of abuse but does not have a Local Authority procedure on abuse. It is recommended that this obtained. Information is available about action that could be taken in the event of physical or verbal aggression. There is no evidence that physical Rosebank DS0000005359.V295881.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 18 intervention is needed although behaviour displayed by one resident is covered in their care plan. The recruitment process does not protect residents. This is outlined later in this report. Rosebank DS0000005359.V295881.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 19 Environment The intended outcomes for Standards 24 – 30 are: 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. Service users live in a homely, comfortable and safe environment. Service users’ bedrooms suit their needs and lifestyles. Service users’ bedrooms promote their independence. Service users’ toilets and bathrooms provide sufficient privacy and meet their individual needs. Shared spaces complement and supplement service users’ individual rooms. Service users have the specialist equipment they require to maximise their independence. The home is clean and hygienic. The Commission considers Standards 24, and 30 the key standards to be inspected at least once during a 12 month period. JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for the following standard(s): 24 and 30 All residents benefit from a clean and hygienic environment that has been extensively refurbished. EVIDENCE: Quality in this outcome area is good. This judgement has been made using available evidence including a visit to the service. A requirement in the last inspection highlighted the need for the refurbishment work that was being undertaken at the time to be completed. This has now been done. The home has been completely refurbished extending to lounges, bedrooms and corridors. All areas of the home are now in a good state of repair and decoration. A pleasant environment has been created and both residents and staff stated that they appreciated the work that had been done. The laundry area is situated in the basement and is separate from food storage and preparation areas. The laundry is well organised and includes hand wash facilities for staff. No offensive odour was present in the building during the visit and all areas were clean. Rosebank DS0000005359.V295881.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 20 Staffing The intended outcomes for Standards 31 – 36 are: 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. Service users benefit from clarity of staff roles and responsibilities. Service users are supported by competent and qualified staff. Service users are supported by an effective staff team. Service users are supported and protected by the home’s recruitment policy and practices. Service users’ individual and joint needs are met by appropriately trained staff. Service users benefit from well supported and supervised staff. The Commission considers Standards 32, 34 and 35 the key standards to be inspected at least once during a 12 month period. JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for the following standard(s): 34 and 35 Residents do not benefit from a robust recruitment process. Residents benefit from receiving support from a trained staff team. EVIDENCE: Quality in this outcome area is adequate. This judgement has been made using available evidence including a visit to the service. Two personnel files relating to newer members of staff were examined. In both cases, information was there to suggest that the individuals had been recruited correctly, however, two issues were noted and are raised as requirements. One file only contained one reference. It is required that a minimum of two references is available. In the case of the other file, no criminal records check was available. It is required that evidence that this has been done is made available. Certificates are available on file to suggest that staff had undertaken training in mandatory topics. This was also confirmed in interviews with staff. A training record was made available for future training. This is mainly in mandatory subjects and is done in conjunction with another registered home. Staff have been identified already for some of this training. Rosebank DS0000005359.V295881.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 21 Conduct and Management of the Home The intended outcomes for Standards 37 – 43 are: 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. Service users benefit from a well run home. Service users benefit from the ethos, leadership and management approach of the home. Service users are confident their views underpin all self-monitoring, review and development by the home. Service users’ rights and best interests are safeguarded by the home’s policies and procedures. Service users’ rights and best interests are safeguarded by the home’s record keeping policies and procedures. The health, safety and welfare of service users are promoted and protected. Service users benefit from competent and accountable management of the service. The Commission considers Standards 37, 39, and 42 the key standards to be inspected at least once during a 12 month period. JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for the following standard(s): 37, 39 and 42 Residents benefit from a well run home that will be further enhanced once the registration process of the acting manager is confirmed (subject to approval). Residents benefit from having their views listened to and quality of support assessed. Health and safety checks have improved since the last inspection. EVIDENCE: Quality in this outcome area is good. This judgement has been made using available evidence including a visit to the service. A requirement at the last inspection highlighted the need for the service to propose an individual to apply to become the Registered Manager. This has now been done and the Acting Manager is currently undergoing the process with the Commission for Social Care Inspection. Since the last inspection in December 2005, all requirements raised in that report have been addressed. Evidence was available to suggest that the views of residents are obtained through meetings as well as one to one sessions. The introduction of advocacy services should assist in this process for those who are unable to communicate Rosebank DS0000005359.V295881.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 22 as well as other residents. A requirement at the last inspection highlighted the need for the Owner to conduct monthly visits to assess the quality of support provided and for reports to be made available to the Acting Manager and Commission for Social Care Inspection. This has now been done. Further requirements at the last inspection highlighted the need for the electrical wiring and gas systems to be checked and evidence produced to confirm this. The Inspector was able to view evidence confirming that appropriate courses of action had been taken. The initial visit to the home noted that fire extinguishers had been used to prop open fire doors and that these appliances had not been serviced for two years. Following advice, the doors were left closed and all appliances had been serviced appropriately. Rosebank DS0000005359.V295881.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 Adults 18-65 have been met and uses the following scale. The scale ranges from: 4 Standard Exceeded 2 Standard Almost Met (Commendable) (Minor Shortfalls) 3 Standard Met 1 Standard Not Met (No Shortfalls) (Major Shortfalls) “X” in the standard met box denotes standard not assessed on this occasion “N/A” in the standard met box denotes standard not applicable CHOICE OF HOME Standard No Score 1 3 2 N/A 3 X 4 X 5 X INDIVIDUAL NEEDS AND CHOICES Standard No 6 7 8 9 10 Score CONCERNS AND COMPLAINTS Standard No Score 22 3 23 3 ENVIRONMENT Standard No Score 24 3 25 X 26 X 27 X 28 X 29 X 30 3 STAFFING Standard No Score 31 X 32 X 33 X 34 2 35 3 36 X CONDUCT AND MANAGEMENT OF THE HOME Standard No 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 Score 2 3 X 3 X LIFESTYLES Standard No Score 11 X 12 3 13 3 14 X 15 3 16 2 17 3 PERSONAL AND HEALTHCARE SUPPORT Standard No 18 19 20 21 Score 3 2 2 X 3 X 3 X X 3 X Rosebank DS0000005359.V295881.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 24 NO Are there any outstanding requirements from the last inspection? 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 YA6 Regulation 15 Requirement Care plans must involve residents when they are devised and evidence produced to confirm this Keys must be provided to the resident identified during the inspection The health needs of the resident identified during the inspection must be reviewed within six months A risk assessment relating to the individual who self administers their medication must be produced All received medications must be signed for The personnel file identified at the inspection must contain two references The personnel file identified at the inspection must contain evidence that a criminal records check has been applied for Timescale for action 31/07/06 2 3 YA16 YA19 12 12 30/06/06 30/11/06 4 YA20 13 31/07/06 5 6 7 YA20 YA34 YA34 13 19 19 30/06/06 30/06/06 30/06/06 Rosebank DS0000005359.V295881.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 25 RECOMMENDATIONS These recommendations relate to National Minimum Standards and are seen as good practice for the Registered Provider/s to consider carrying out. No. 1 2 3 4 Refer to Standard YA1 YA22 YA7 YA16 YA23 Good Practice Recommendations The service user guide and complaints procedure should be devised in a format to meet the communication needs of residents Advocacy service should be developed within Rosebank Involvement in daily routines should be extended to all residents A copy of the Local Authority procedure on abuse should be obtained Rosebank DS0000005359.V295881.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 26 Commission for Social Care Inspection Knowsley Local Office 2nd Floor, South Wing Burlington House Crosby Road North Liverpool L22 0LG 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 Rosebank DS0000005359.V295881.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 27 - Please note that this information is included on www.bestcarehome.co.uk under license from the regulator. Re-publishing this information is in breach of the terms of use of that website. Discrete codes and changes have been inserted throughout the textual data shown on the site that will provide incontrovertable proof of copying in the event this information is re-published on other websites. The policy of www.bestcarehome.co.uk is to use all legal avenues to pursue such offenders, including recovery of costs. You have been warned!