Inspection on 17/07/08 for Rosebank

This inspection was carried out on 17th July 2008.

CSCI found this care home to be providing an Good service.

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

Rosebank 12/06/07

Rosebank 07/02/06

Rosebank 10/10/05

Rosebank 09/02/05

Rosebank 10/08/04

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 08/11/2008.

CARE HOMES FOR OLDER PEOPLE Rosebank 48 Lyons Road Sheffield South Yorkshire S4 7EL Lead Inspector Mrs Janis Robinson Key Unannounced Inspection 09:30 17th July 2008 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 Rosebank DS0000003007.V365707.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. Rosebank DS0000003007.V365707.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 3 SERVICE INFORMATION Name of service Rosebank Address 48 Lyons Road Sheffield South Yorkshire S4 7EL 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) 0114 261 8618 05601253004 none None Silver Healthcare Limited Mrs Sharon Breeze Care Home 26 Category(ies) of Dementia - over 65 years of age (21), Mental registration, with number Disorder, excluding learning disability or of places dementia - over 65 years of age (21), Old age, not falling within any other category (5) Rosebank DS0000003007.V365707.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 4 SERVICE INFORMATION Conditions of registration: 1. One service user, under the age of 65, whose details are specified on the Variation to Registration application dated 12.03.03 may be resident at the home. One other service user who was under the age of 65 on 01.04.02 and who was living at the home may remain resident at the home. 12th June 2007 Date of last inspection Brief Description of the Service: Rosebank is a purpose built home for twenty-six older people who have dementia. The home is a two-storey building and has 20 single and 3 double rooms, which are all accessible by a passenger lift. Sufficient communal space and bathing facilities are provided. The home has small landscaped gardens and a car park is available. The home is situated in a residential area of Sheffield with good access to public services and amenities. Weekly fees range from £327 to £404 and do not include costs for hairdressing and chiropody. Information about the home, in the form of a service user guide, and inspection reports are available by request from the home. Rosebank DS0000003007.V365707.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 5 SUMMARY This is an overview of what the inspector found during the inspection. The quality rating for this service is 2 star. This means that the people who use this service experience good quality outcomes. This was an unannounced key inspection carried out by Janis Robinson regulation inspector. A site visit took place between the hours of 9.00 am and 4:30 pm on the 17th of July 2008. Sharon Breeze, the registered manager, was present during the visit. Prior to the visit the registered manager had submitted an Annual Quality Assurance Assessment (AQAA) which detailed what the home was doing well, what had improved since the last inspection and any plans for improving the service in the next twelve months. Information from the AQAA is included in the main body of the report. Questionnaires, regarding the quality of the care and support provided, were sent to people living in the home, their relatives, care staff and any professionals involved in peoples care. The Commission for Social Care Inspection (CSCI) received five questionnaires from people using the service, three from relatives, four from staff and two from health professionals. Comments and feedback from these have been included in this report. On the day of the site visit staff were observed interacting with people that live in the home. Opportunity was taken to make a partial tour of the premises, inspect a sample of care records and records relating to the running of the home. Four staff and eight people living at the home were spoken with. The inspector checked all key standards and the standards relating to the requirements outstanding from the homes last inspection in June 2007. The progress made has been reported on under the relevant standard in this report. The inspector wishes to thank the people living in the home, staff, and relatives for their time, friendliness and co-operation throughout the inspection process. What the service does well: Communication difficulties meant that some people living in the home were unable to answer questions fully. However, all of the five returned Rosebank DS0000003007.V365707.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 6 questionnaires contained positive responses. People said they “always” received the care and support they need, and staff were “always” available when they need them. One person said in their questionnaire “Feel staff take care of me well” People spoken with said staff were “Fine” and the food was “Good” Comments received from relatives’ questionnaires were positive and included: “The home keeps in touch with me”. “They look after them all”. “Care and kindness shown for people in their care”. “The staff are all very pleasant, friendly and helpful”. Comments received from Health professionals included: “Pleasant atmosphere and caring stable workforce” “District nurses have a very good relationship with this home. They are always looking for ways to improve things”. “Standard is generally very high at Rosebank”. Care plans were in place for all people living at the home. They set out all aspects of personal, social and health care needs and recorded the staff action required to ensure all identified needs were met. People’s health care was monitored and access to health specialists was available. People confirmed that staff were always respectful towards them. People said that they had a choice of food and that the quality of food served was “fine”. There was a complaints procedure and adult protection procedure in place, to promote peoples safety. Staff and relatives said they had confidence in the homes manager, who would listen to any concerns and take them seriously. People said that they felt safe living at the home. Training took place, to equip staff with the essential skills needed. Systems were checked and serviced to maintain a safe environment. Rosebank DS0000003007.V365707.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 7 What has improved since the last inspection? What they could do better: Please contact the provider for advice of actions taken in response to this inspection. The report of this inspection is available from enquiries@csci.gsi.gov.uk or by contacting your local CSCI office. The summary of this inspection report can be made available in other formats on request. Rosebank DS0000003007.V365707.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 8 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 Rosebank DS0000003007.V365707.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 9 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 1 and 3. Standard 6 is not applicable to this home. People who use the service experience good quality outcomes in this area. We have made this judgement using a range of evidence, including a visit to this service. The home provided sufficient information to tell people about their rights and choices. Pre admission assessments made sure peoples needs could be met before they decided to move in. EVIDENCE: A copy of the homes service user guide was seen in the entrance area, and in all of the bedrooms checked so that it was available to everyone. The guide included useful information about the home and the services offered. The manager confirmed that people’s needs were assessed before they moved into the home; to make sure these could be met. She said that she, or the deputy, visited people in their own homes, or hospital, to gather relevant information. Relatives were always involved in the assessment as often people Rosebank DS0000003007.V365707.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 10 that may be moving into the home had communication difficulties. People could also choose to spend the day at Rosebank, meeting staff and other people living there, having a meal and seeing the accommodation. This visit would form part of the assessment so that full information was obtained. The manager confirmed that people could visit the home as often as needed before choosing to move in. Pre admission assessments were seen in the three care plans checked. These had been fully completed and contained enough information to write a plan of care. Copies of social workers assessments were obtained where available so that all relevant information was provided. Copies of these were also seen in the three care plans checked. In their questionnaires, people living at the home said that they had been given enough information about the home to help them decide to move in. Relatives said they ‘always’ get enough information to help them make a decision. Rosebank DS0000003007.V365707.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 11 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 and 10. People who use the service experience good quality outcomes in this area. We have made this judgement using a range of evidence, including a visit to this service. People’s needs were set out in an individual care plan and a range of health care professionals visited the home, so that all identified needs were met. Medication procedures protected people’s health and welfare. However, medication was not always recorded at the time of administration to minimise risk. Staff respected people’s privacy. EVIDENCE: Three plans of care were checked. These contained information on all aspects of personal, social and health care needs. The plans included information on the staff action required to ensure assessed needs were met. Staff were aware of the contents of care plans and were knowledgeable about peoples individual needs. Rosebank DS0000003007.V365707.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 12 The care plans identified that a range of health professionals visited the home to assist in maintaining peoples health. Records showed that GP’s, dentists, opticians and chiropodists visited the home as requested. The care plans had been updated on a monthly basis so that they always contained up to date information. The plans contained up to date risk assessments so that people were safe and all risks were minimised. Care staff wrote daily records in care plans. Whilst these accurately reflected that “Care given as per plan”, they did not record any other information so that staff were fully informed of peoples current mental, health and social state. When asked if they received the care and medical support they needed, all five peoples questionnaires returned said “always”. When asked if the care home meets the needs of their relative, and gives the right support and care, all three relatives questionnaires returned said “always”. Relatives said: “The staff are very helpful towards (my relative) and myself when visiting”. When asked what the home does well, one relative said, “Looking after them all” Medicines were securely stored in locked trolleys within locked cupboards. Managers and senior staff administered medications. Staff said they had completed training in safe medication administration. The manager confirmed that she audited the medication systems weekly, and a pharmacist audited every three months. The lunchtime medication administration was observed; staff administered safely and observed people whilst they took their medication. Medication administration records (MAR) sheets were checked, whilst the majority were fully completed, two gaps were noted. Times of medication had been changed so that people were not given their medicine during lunch and could enjoy their meal. Controlled drugs (CD) were kept in a locked cabinet in a locked room. Staff confirmed that two staff signatures were recorded in the CD register. When asked if they receive the medical support they need, all five peoples questionnaires said “always”. When asked if people’s privacy and dignity was respected, both health professionals’ questionnaires said “always”. Rosebank DS0000003007.V365707.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 13 Staff spoken to were aware of the need to treat people with dignity and respect and were observed interacting in a friendly and pleasant way, and knocking on peoples doors before entering. People living at the home were seen to choose whether to spend time in their rooms, for privacy. Rosebank DS0000003007.V365707.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 14 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 and 15. People who use the service experience adequate quality outcomes in this area. We have made this judgement using a range of evidence, including a visit to this service. A comfortable relaxed environment, where visitors were welcomed, was provided for people so that they could enjoy their time and have contact with loved ones. A limited range of activities was on offer, further activities would promote choice and maintain peoples interests. Meals served at the home offered choice and ensured people received a healthy balanced diet. EVIDENCE: Staff confirmed that people were able to get up and go to bed when they chose. People were seen to walk freely around the home, if able. One person seen preferred to spend a lot of their time in their room and staff respected their decision. Bedroom doors were unlocked so that people could go to their own rooms if they wished. Staff were heard to offer people choices, for example, about where to sit or what programme to watch on television. Staff chatted to people in a friendly and respectful manner. Rosebank DS0000003007.V365707.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 15 In their questionnaires, relatives said they were able to visit at any time and were made to feel very welcome. When asked if the care home helps their relative keep in touch, all three relatives questionnaires returned said “always”. When asked if the home supports people to live the life they choose, all three relatives questionnaires said “always”. The three care plans seen showed that people had regular contact with their relatives, at different times of the day and at weekends. Carers at the home had the responsibility of carrying out activities, which although they enjoyed, added to their tasks. As a result, a limited amount of activities could be offered. Records showed that these included skittles, bingo, reminiscence and some card games. When asked what the home could do better, two of the four staff questionnaires said “more activities” In their questionnaires, health professionals said “High standard of social care” “More activities for residents would improve the service” “Residents generally seem to be slumped in chairs in the lounges with no activity/stimulation” Activities for people with Dementia are an important tool to maintain life skills. The inspector discussed with the manager the need for an activities worker, to enhance people’s social life and reduce the burden on carers. It is acknowledged that the organisation was attempting to recruit an activities worker that would be shared with two other homes. The menu examined was varied and offered choices. Lunch was partially observed in two of the three dining rooms. The mid-day meal served appeared appetising and was well presented. People were seen eating different meals of their choice. Staff were seen to offer assistance with eating discreetly and respectfully. During the meal staff spent time chatting with people. Whilst the tables were well set, and appropriate cutlery was available, no condiments were set out at any of the dining tables seen. These were produced when the inspector asked if they were available. One person was observed to need a soft diet. Her meal was pureed together and did not appear appetising. It is recommended that the different foods be pureed separately to make meals more enjoyable and appealing. When asked about the food, one person living at the home said; “Good” Rosebank DS0000003007.V365707.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 16 Complaints and Protection The intended outcomes for Standards 16 - 18 are: 16. 17. 18. Service users and their relatives and friends are confident that their complaints will be listened to, taken seriously and acted upon. Service users’ legal rights are protected. Service users are protected from abuse. The Commission considers Standards 16 and 18 the key standards to be. JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for the following standard(s): Standards 16 and 18. People who use the service experience good quality outcomes in this area. We have made this judgement using a range of evidence, including a visit to this service. The complaints and protection procedures made sure people were protected and felt listened to. EVIDENCE: The home had a complaints procedure, which was displayed in the office and in reception and was also included in the service user guide. This contained details of who to speak to at the home and who to contact outside of the home to make a complaint should people wish to do so. No complaints had been received since the last inspection. Staff spoken to were clear how to respond to and record any complaints received. When asked if they knew how to make a complaint or speak to someone if they were unhappy, all five people living at the home that returned questionnaires said: “Always”. Rosebank DS0000003007.V365707.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 17 All three relatives that returned questionnaires said that they had been told how to complain if they needed to, and the home “always” responded appropriately if they had raised concerns. One relative said: “I have had no reason for any concern”. In their questionnaires, both health professionals said the home “always” responded appropriately if they had raised concerns. One health professional said; “The home has always been very willing to listen to what we (District Nurses) have to say and implement changes”. An adult protection procedure was in place; this was seen to include local multi-agency and whistle blowing procedures so that full information was available. Staff had undertaken formal training on adult protection, which had equipped them with the skills needed to respond appropriately to any allegations. On the afternoon of this inspection, a training event on adult protection was being provided to staff by the Partnership in Older Peoples Project (POPPS) team. All staff had attended this training so that they were equipped with the skills needed to respond appropriately to any allegations People spoken to said that they felt safe living at the home. Rosebank DS0000003007.V365707.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 18 Environment The intended outcomes for Standards 19 – 26 are: 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. Service users live in a safe, well-maintained environment. Service users have access to safe and comfortable indoor and outdoor communal facilities. Service users have sufficient and suitable lavatories and washing facilities. Service users have the specialist equipment they require to maximise their independence. Service users’ own rooms suit their needs. Service users live in safe, comfortable bedrooms with their own possessions around them. Service users live in safe, comfortable surroundings. The home is clean, pleasant and hygienic. The Commission considers Standards 19 and 26 the key standards to be inspected. JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for the following standard(s): Standards 19, 24 and 26. People who use the service experience good quality outcomes in this area. We have made this judgement using a range of evidence, including a visit to this service. The home provided a well-maintained and comfortable place for people to live. EVIDENCE: A partial tour of the environment was made. Accommodation was provided on two floors, each with its own dining rooms, lounges and bedrooms. A lift provided access between the floors. A small secure garden was provided for people to enjoy. All of the accommodation was well decorated and well maintained. All of the bedrooms seen were well personalised with peoples own belongings so that they had some control over their personal space. Since the last inspection parts of the home had been redecorated and refurbished, new dining tables and some new flooring had been provided to Rosebank DS0000003007.V365707.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 19 maintain a pleasant environment. Keypads had been fitted to the ground and first floor doors to reduce the risk of falls to people who liked to wander around the home. The home was clean and fresh smelling. One health professional said, “I have rarely smelt offensive smells in this home which I feel reflects a lot in standard of care”. All of the people asked said that they were happy with their rooms. Rosebank DS0000003007.V365707.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 20 Staffing The intended outcomes for Standards 27 – 30 are: 27. 28. 29. 30. Service users’ needs are met by the numbers and skill mix of staff. Service users are in safe hands at all times. Service users are supported and protected by the home’s recruitment policy and practices. Staff are trained and competent to do their jobs. The Commission consider all the above are key standards to be inspected. JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for the following standard(s): Standards 27, 28, 29 and 30. People who use the service experience good quality outcomes in this area. We have made this judgement using a range of evidence, including a visit to this service. Sufficient staff were provided to meet peoples needs. Staff training and recruitment procedures protected people. EVIDENCE: Staff rotas showed that there was sufficient staff employed to meet the needs of people. Staff said that there were usually enough staff on duty to meet peoples needs. Rotas showed that agency staff were not used at this home. Staff said they worked well together as a team and enjoyed working at the home. Staff were able to talk about the various training courses that they had attended, which included all of the mandatory training, for example, Moving and Handling, Food Hygiene, Adult Protection, First Aid and Fire. Other specialised topics, for example dementia awareness, care of ageing skin and optical awareness were provided to staff to improve their knowledge and skill. The training records examined showed that all staff were up to date with all aspects of mandatory training. The manager had a system in place to make sure all staff were provided with training at the appropriate frequencies. Rosebank DS0000003007.V365707.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 21 All four staff that returned questionnaires said that they had been given enough training that was relevant to their role, helped them understand peoples needs and kept them up to date with new ways of working. The training records seen showed that new staff were provided with induction training to equip them with necessary skills to do their job. A programme of National Vocational Qualifications (NVQ) was available to staff. At the time of this inspection, 60 of the staff team had achieved NVQ in care at levels 2 or 3. Three records of employment were checked. These included all of the required information including interview assessment, verification of identity, references, certificates of training, health checks and evidence of Criminal Records Bureau (CRB) and Protection of Vulnerable Adults (POVA) checks. Application forms fully recorded previous employment. In their questionnaire, one health professional said, “A caring and stable workforce” Rosebank DS0000003007.V365707.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. JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for the following standard(s): Standards 31, 33, 35, 36 and 38. People who use the service experience good quality outcomes in this area. We have made this judgement using a range of evidence, including a visit to this service. The manager’s approach benefited people. The quality assurance system needed further development to make sure people had access to relevant information. People were safeguarded by the financial procedures in operation. Health and safety systems protected people. EVIDENCE: The registered manager was experienced in the care of older people. Since the last inspection she had achieved NVQ level 4 in management and care. The deputy manager had also achieved this qualification. Rosebank DS0000003007.V365707.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 23 A quality assurance system was in operation. Surveys were sent to relatives and health professionals twice yearly to obtain their views. However, the results of these surveys needed to be published and made available to interested parties so that appropriate information was provided to them. Where able, the opinions of people living at the home were sought. These needed to be included in the published results. Everyone spoken to and information from questionnaires confirmed that people living at the home, staff and relatives were all happy to approach the manager at any time for advice, guidance or to look at any issues. The home handles money on behalf of some people. Three peoples financial records were checked. Computerised account sheets recorded all transactions and receipts were kept. People received interest on their accounts. Spending money was available to people should they need it. Formal staff supervision, to develop, inform and support staff took place at regular intervals and staff said that they found this useful and beneficial. However, the sample of records examined showed that some supervisions were not taking place as frequently as the recommended six times each year. Fire records seen and a tour of the environment evidenced that equipment at the home was serviced and maintained. Fire alarm checks took place each week to make sure they were in working order. Fire records showed that all staff participated in fire drills at appropriate frequencies so that they knew how to respond in an emergency. A proportion of staff had been provided with first aid training so that they had relevant skills in an emergency. Rosebank DS0000003007.V365707.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 24 SCORING OF OUTCOMES This page summarises the assessment of the extent to which the National Minimum Standards for Care Homes for Older People have been met and uses the following scale. The scale ranges from: 4 Standard Exceeded 2 Standard Almost Met (Commendable) (Minor Shortfalls) 3 Standard Met 1 Standard Not Met (No Shortfalls) (Major Shortfalls) “X” in the standard met box denotes standard not assessed on this occasion “N/A” in the standard met box denotes standard not applicable CHOICE OF HOME Standard No Score 1 2 3 4 5 6 ENVIRONMENT Standard No Score 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 3 X 3 X X N/A HEALTH AND PERSONAL CARE Standard No Score 7 3 8 3 9 2 10 3 11 X DAILY LIFE AND SOCIAL ACTIVITIES Standard No Score 12 2 13 3 14 3 15 3 COMPLAINTS AND PROTECTION Standard No Score 16 3 17 X 18 3 3 X X X X 3 X 3 STAFFING Standard No Score 27 3 28 3 29 3 30 3 MANAGEMENT AND ADMINISTRATION Standard No 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 Score 3 X 2 X 3 2 X 3 Rosebank DS0000003007.V365707.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 25 Are there any outstanding requirements from the last inspection? Yes STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS This section sets out the actions, which must be taken so that the registered person/s meets the Care Standards Act 2000, Care Homes Regulations 2001 and the National Minimum Standards. The Registered Provider(s) must comply with the given timescales. No. 1 Standard OP9 Regulation 13 Requirement Medication administration records must be fully completed and recorded at the time of administration to minimise risk. The registered persons must arrange for people in the home, appropriate activities, which will help them, maintain their life skills and provide them with a fulfilling lifestyle. Previous timescale of 01/08/07 not met People in the home must be encouraged to and given the opportunity to view their views about the home and the results of all surveys must be published and made available to people who use the service or are interested in the service. Previous timescale of 01/08/07 not met Timescale for action 01/09/08 2 OP12 16 01/09/08 3 OP33 24 01/10/08 Rosebank DS0000003007.V365707.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 26 RECOMMENDATIONS These recommendations relate to National Minimum Standards and are seen as good practice for the Registered Provider/s to consider carrying out. No. 1. Refer to Standard OP7 Good Practice Recommendations Daily recordings should include information on people’s mental and physical state so that staff are kept fully informed. Condiments should be set out at every meal so that they are always available. Foods should be pureed separately to make meals appear more appetising. Supervisions should take place a minimum of six times each year, for staff development and support. 2 3 4 OP15 OP15 OP36 Rosebank DS0000003007.V365707.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 27 Commission for Social Care Inspection North Eastern Region St Nicholas Building St Nicholas Street Newcastle Upon Tyne NE1 1NB 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 Rosebank DS0000003007.V365707.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 28 - Please note that this information is included on www.bestcarehome.co.uk under license from the regulator. Re-publishing this information is in breach of the terms of use of that website. Discrete codes and changes have been inserted throughout the textual data shown on the site that will provide incontrovertable proof of copying in the event this information is re-published on other websites. The policy of www.bestcarehome.co.uk is to use all legal avenues to pursue such offenders, including recovery of costs. You have been warned!