Inspection on 18/10/06 for Rosebridge Court

This inspection was carried out on 18th October 2006.

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

The inspector found there to be outstanding requirements from the previous inspection report but made no statutory requirements on the home.

Other inspections for this house

Rosebridge Court 15/02/06

Rosebridge Court 22/06/05

Rosebridge Court 12/10/04

Rosebridge Court 25/05/04

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

CARE HOME MIXED CATEGORY MAJORITY OLDER PEOPLE Rosebridge Court Darby Lane Hindley Wigan Lancashire WN2 3DU Lead Inspector Bernard Tracey Unannounced Inspection 18th October 2006 09:30 X10029.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 Rosebridge Court DS0000005696.V308481.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 and 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. Rosebridge Court DS0000005696.V308481.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 3 SERVICE INFORMATION Name of service Rosebridge Court Address Darby Lane Hindley Wigan Lancashire WN2 3DU 01942 526240 01942 526270 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) www.schealthcare.co.uk Southern Cross Healthcare Services Limited Care Home 46 Category(ies) of Dementia - over 65 years of age (24), Mental registration, with number disorder, excluding learning disability or of places dementia (22) Rosebridge Court DS0000005696.V308481.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 4 SERVICE INFORMATION Conditions of registration: 1. 2. Within the maximum registered number 46, there can be up to 24 Adults with Dementia over 65 years (DE (E)) and 22 Adults with Mental Disorder (MD). The service should employ a suitably qualified and experienced Manager who is registered by the Commission for Social Care Inspection 15th February 2006 Date of last inspection Brief Description of the Service: Rosebridge Court is a purpose built care home situated on the outskirts of Hindley town centre, close to shops and other amenities, and is on the main bus route. The home is built on two floors providing nursing care for 24 male and female service users with dementia on the first floor, Darby Unit, and 22 male and female younger adults with enduring mental illness on the ground floor, Allendale Unit. Personal accommodation is provided in single rooms with en suite facilities. There are large communal lounges and separate dining rooms on both units. Active Care Partnership, a subsidiary of Southern Cross Healthcare Plc, owns the home. The home makes the following charges over and above the weekly care and accommodation fees that are listed after this section: Chiropody; Hairdressing; Newspapers; As charged Fees charged by the home provided in September 2006 are in the range of: £310.12p to £856.96. per week Rosebridge Court DS0000005696.V308481.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 5 SUMMARY This is an overview of what the inspector found during the inspection. The home was not made aware that this inspection was to take place. Several weeks before the inspection questionnaires were sent out to doctors, social workers and community nurses, as well as to the residents of the home and their relatives. The questionnaires asked what people thought of the care and services provided by the home. The questionnaires sent to visiting professionals asked questions relating to communication, availability of senior staff when visiting, staff having a clear understanding of service users needs, management taking appropriate decisions, management of medication, complaints from residents they may be aware of, and if they are satisfied with the overall care provided by the home. Only one reply was received and from a doctor who praised the home for “the way they communicated and for the care provided by the staff to the client”. Three relatives returned the questionnaires and all were satisfied. The Inspector spent 6.5 hours at the home. During this time he looked at care records to ensure that health and care needs were met and also studied how information was given to people before they decided to move into the home. A full tour of the building was undertaken and time was spent looking at records regarding safety in the home. He also examined files that contained information about how the staff were recruited for their jobs, as well having a discussion about staff training. The Inspector spent time speaking to 8 residents as well as speaking to 10 staff, and the manager. What the service does well: The staff team work well together and show a good understanding of the needs of the people living at the home. The home was good at visiting people before they moved in, to make sure the home could provide the care they needed. They were also good at writing down what care people needed and making sure they received it. The home has an experienced and enthusiastic team of staff who work well together and enjoy taking part in training and development sessions. The staff are motivated and keen to ensure that residents receive high standards of care. The manager was experienced and ran the home well. He made sure he checked out staff before they started working at the home and gave them training and support to make sure they did the job to the best of their ability. Meals and mealtimes were considered to be an important part of the residents’ day. The dining rooms are nice places to sit, eat and meet with other Rosebridge Court DS0000005696.V308481.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 6 residents. The residents said that they really enjoyed their meals. They were satisfied with the choice of meals and the way they were cooked and served. 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. Rosebridge Court DS0000005696.V308481.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 7 DETAILS OF INSPECTOR FINDINGS CONTENTS Choice of Home Health and Personal Care Daily Life and Social Activities Complaints and Protection Environment Staffing Management and Administration Scoring of Outcomes Statutory Requirements Identified During the Inspection Older People (Standards 1–6) (Standards 7-11) (Standards 12-15) (Standards 16-18) (Standards 19-26) (Standards 27-30) (Standards 31-38) Adults 18 – 65 (Standards 1–5) (Standards 6, 9, 16 and 18–21) (Standards 7, 15 and 17) (Standards 22–23) (Standards 24–30) (Standards 31–35) (Standards 8, 10 and 37–43) Rosebridge Court DS0000005696.V308481.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 8 Choice of Home The intended outcomes for Standards 1 – 6 (Older People) and Standards 1 – 5 (Adults 18 – 65) are: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Prospective service users have the information they need to make an informed choice about where to live. (YA NMS 1) Each service user has a written contract/ statement of terms and conditions with the home. Each Service User has an individual contract or statement of terms and conditions with the home. (YA NMS 5) No service user moves into the home without having had his/her needs assessed and been assured that these will be met. Prospective Service Users’ individual aspirations and needs are assessed. (YA NMS 2) Service users and their representatives know that the home they enter will meet their needs. Prospective Service Users know that the home they choose will meet their needs and aspirations. (YA NMS 3) Prospective service users and their relatives and friends have an opportunity to visit and assess the quality, facilities and suitability of the home. Prospective service users have an opportunity to “test drive” the home. (YA NMS 4) Service users assessed and referred solely for intermediate care are helped to maximise their independence and return home. 6. The Commission considers Standards 3 and 6 (Older People) and Standard 2 (Adults 18-65) the key standards. JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for the following standard(s): 2 (Adults 18-65) 3 (Older People) Standard 6 does not apply. Quality in this outcome area is good. A thorough assessment of each resident is made prior to admission to ensure that residents’ needs would be met at the home. This judgement has been made using available evidence including a visit to this service. Rosebridge Court DS0000005696.V308481.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 9 EVIDENCE: New residents are admitted following an assessment undertaken by members of staff, usually by the registered manager and the relevant unit manager, who normally undertake a joint assessment of the individual. When the home is contacted the initial reasons for the referral are established and a pre admission assessment is then arranged. Because of the nature of the client group admitted to the older people’s service, it is more appropriate that the resident’s representative visits the home to assess the facilities and have the opportunity to meet with the staff to discuss the way their needs of their relatives’ will be met. Younger adults are invited to view the facilities and meet both residents and staff before making a decision to move into the home on a trial basis. Adequate time and opportunity to make a decision regarding the placement is afforded the individual and this opportunity enables them to discuss how the home can meet the person’s individual requirements. Clear and detailed information concerning trial visits and the length of the ‘settling in’ period is included in the Statement of Purpose. Emergency admissions are avoided as far as possible. The home develops a care plan based on the assessments made prior to admission to the home. There is evidence within the care plans, and in discussion with the residents, that any potential restrictions on choice, freedom, services or facilities, likely to become part of the residents’ daily life, had been discussed and agreed with the individual during assessment. Any changes in status are agreed with the resident and their representatives and recorded within the care plan. Rosebridge Court DS0000005696.V308481.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 10 Health and Personal Care The intended outcomes for Standards 7 – 11 (Older People) and Standards 6, 9, 16, 18 –21 (Adults 18-65) are: 7. The service user’s health, personal and social care needs are set out in an individual plan of care. Service Users know their assessed and changing needs and personal goals are reflected in their individual plan. (YA NMS 6) Also Service Users are supported to take risks as part of an independent lifestyle. (YA NMS 9) Service users’ health care needs are fully met. Service Users physical and emotional health needs are met. (YA NMS 19) 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, retain, administer and control their own medication where appropriate and are protected by the home’s policies and procedures for dealing with medicine. (YA NMS 20) Service users feel they are treated with respect and their right to privacy is upheld. Service Users rights are respected and responsibilities recognised in their daily lives. (YA NMS 16) Also Service Users receive personal support in the way they prefer and require. (YA NMS 18) Service users are assured that at the time of their death, staff will treat them and their family with care, sensitivity and respect. The ageing, illness and death of a Service User are handled with respect and as the individual would wish. (YA NMS 21) 8. 9. 10. 11. The Commission considers standards 7, 8, 9 and 10 (Older People) and Standards 6, 9, 16, 18, 19 and 20 (Adults 18-65) are the key standards. JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for the following standard(s): 7 8 9 10 (OP) and 7 9 18 19 20 (Adults 18-65) Quality in this outcome area is good. There is a clear and detailed care planning system in place that includes residents’ involvement and provides the staff with the information needed to meet the needs of the residents. This judgement has been made using available evidence including a visit to this service. Rosebridge Court DS0000005696.V308481.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 11 EVIDENCE: Darby Unit Residents receive a formal assessment from a qualified member of staff using a detailed assessment format. The care management assessments and the hospital care plans are obtained prior to admission to the home, and a copy is held in the residents’ notes. Individual care plans are in place for each resident. The care plan is generated from the single care management assessment and the assessment provided by the home. The plan sets out how the current and anticipated needs are to be met. The Unit manager was able to describe how relatives are involved in the drawing up of the care plan and understood the meaning of a care plan to describe the assessed needs of a resident and how the needs were to be met. The care plan would also include any changes in the resident’s condition. Signatures in the care plans, indicating that the individual agreed with the plan and any alterations made to it after consultation with the individual, confirmed this involvement. Risk assessments are in place for residents and records are maintained in the service user care plan. Allendale Unit As with residents on the Darby Unit individuals receive a formal assessment from a qualified member of staff using a detailed assessment format. The care management assessments and the hospital care plans are obtained prior to admission to the home, and a copy was seen in the residents’ notes that were examined during the inspection. The care plan is generated from the single care management assessment and the assessment provided by the home. The plan sets out how the current and anticipated needs are to be met. There is evidence that the resident together with family, friends or advocate are involved in the drawing up of the plan. Care plans examined had been reviewed on at least a monthly basis, which is above the necessary requirement of this standard. The review of care is conducted on a group basis that involves the resident, the key worker and the named nurse and on occasions the representative. All of the reviews are recorded and signed by the participants. Any potential restrictions on choice, freedom, services or facilities that become part of the residents’ daily life, had been discussed and agreed with the Rosebridge Court DS0000005696.V308481.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 12 resident during assessment, and recorded in the care plan, including details of the use of keypads on exit doors. Two residents spoken with confirmed that they had been given “all the information about how the home is run before coming in the place.” One resident said he had “come on a trial basis and decided to stay” Information in respect of residents is shared within the home team and visiting professionals in the interests of the resident. In this respect it also necessary for the home to share personal identification and some medical detail with the local police when concern surrounds an individual who is absent from the home without prior arrangement and the home feels that the person may be at risk. Procedures for responding to unexplained absences and who should be notified are confirmed in a written policy. Wherever possible residents are encouraged to manage their own finances and at the time of the Inspection most residents were taking personal control over their money, but where the home does manage the finances for individuals, records are maintained and a recognised tool for audit is incorporated in the monthly review of finance supplied to the Registered Provider by the home’s administrator. Observations made during the inspection indicated that staff had developed a good rapport with residents and there were several examples of spontaneous and humorous interactions with residents and staff. Arrangements for appropriate access to specialist medical care, unavailable for service users on the Allendale unit at the last two inspections have still not been finalised. Since the departure of the Responsible Medical Officer, previously employed by the Registered Person, the home have been in consultation with the Primary Care Trust and Team Leader of Social Services to secure arrangements for out of area service users, to have access to local psychiatric medical care to meet their assessed need. The home is still in the process of arranging medical officer cover but in the mean time the residents’ referring medical officer is giving medical cover. The manager confirmed that even though arrangements for the medical cover was still outstanding no residents had suffered adversely from the delay. Rosebridge Court DS0000005696.V308481.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 13 Daily Life and Social Activities The intended outcomes for Standards 12 - 15 (Older People) and Standards 7, 11– 15 and 17 (Adults 18-65) are: 12. 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 have opportunities for personal development. (YA NMS 11) Also Service Users are able to take part in age, peer and culturally appropriate activities. (YA NMS 12). Also Service users engage in appropriate leisure activities. (YA NMS 14) Service users maintain contact with family/ friends/ representatives and the local community as they wish. Service Users are part of the local community. (YA NMS 13) Also Service Users have appropriate personal, family and sexual relationships. (YA NMS 15) Service users are helped to exercise choice and control over their lives. Service Users make decisions about their lives with assistance as needed. (YA NMS 7) Service users receive a wholesome appealing balanced diet in pleasing surroundings at times convenient to them. Service Users are offered a healthy diet and enjoy their meals and mealtimes. (YA NMS 17) 13. 14. 15. The Commission considers standards 12, 13, 14 and 15 (Older People) and Standards 12, 13, 15 and 17 (Adults 18-65) the key standards to be inspected. JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for the following standard(s): 12 13 14 15 (Older People) 12 13 15 17 (Younger Adults) Quality in this outcome area is good The range of leisure activities available in the home was varied, reflecting the diversity of residents and their social, intellectual and physical capacities. This judgement has been made using available evidence including a visit to this service. Rosebridge Court DS0000005696.V308481.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 14 EVIDENCE: The inspector spoke with the activities coordinators who work on the two units. Both were able to demonstrate a clear understanding of their role and had a clear sense of direction of how the activities and interests residents were to be addressed. Darby Unit The program included individual and group activities. A new residents record showed evidence that their need for support to be active and stimulated had been included in assessments and that this person had within the first week of being at the home had four individual sessions with the activities co-ordinator. Six other records, briefly looked at, showed evidence of residents being helped to participate in both group and individual activities several times a week. Care staff said that they are encouraged to participate in activities and to spend time sitting and talking with residents. One carer had identified that it “would be a good idea to drive a few residents around the area that they grew up in” - further enabled by the purchase of a ‘People Carrier’ by the Registered Provider. Allendale Unit Significant progress has been made in relation to the concept of Individual Activity Plans. The therapist has introduced a system of individual goal planning that concentrates on what the individual can do and identifies what they would like to achieve. One resident had began computer training and had taken delivery of his own laptop. On the day of the inspection he was waiting for an engineer to call to fit a telephone line to enable access to the Internet. A tutor from the local college comes to the home to provide tuition for any interested resident, on computer use. The home is beginning to develop skills kitchens on both units to enable residents to make drinks or snack meals. Two Occupational Therapy students, on placement at the home were using their expertise to develop and design the kitchens and advise the staff on skills assessment. Though no visitors were at the home the morning of the inspection staff confirmed that visitors are welcome at anytime, without appointment. The menu for the day was clearly written up in each dinning area and included a choice of main meals. Staff confirmed that residents are asked what they would like for lunch early morning but that they can change their mind when Rosebridge Court DS0000005696.V308481.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 15 the meal comes around if they wish. The inspector took the opportunity to dine with the residents. The meal was Roast Lamb with an assortment of vegetables followed by fresh fruit salad and cream. Residents were seen being assisted sensitively, with individual attention being paid by staff where needed. Several residents were able to say that they like the food provided. The majority of the staff sat and ate their meal with the residents. Rosebridge Court DS0000005696.V308481.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 16 Complaints and Protection The intended outcomes for Standards 16 – 18 (Older People) and Standards 22 – 23 (Adults 18-65) 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 feel their views are listened to and acted on. (YA NMS 22) Service users’ legal rights are protected. Service Users are protected from abuse, neglect and self-harm. (YA NMS 23) Service users are protected from abuse. Service Users are protected from abuse, neglect and self-harm. (YA NMS 23) The Commission considers standards 16 and 18 (Older People) and Standards 22 and 23 (Adults 18-65) the key standards to be inspected. JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for the following standard(s): 16 18 (Older People) and 22 23 (Younger Adults) Quality in this outcome area is good Residents were confident that complaints would be listened to, taken seriously and acted upon. Appropriate systems were in place to protect residents from abuse. This judgement has been made using available evidence including a visit to this service. EVIDENCE: The home had a complaints procedure, which was displayed on the notice board in the entrance area and included in the Service User Guide. Staff interviewed were familiar with the procedure. Residents and relatives knew who to speak to if they had a complaint, “the Manager or Nurse in charge” but said that matters were usually dealt with straight away so there was no need to complain. These smaller issues were not recorded, the manager may wish to do so for monitoring purposes. The CSCI had received no complaints about the home since the last inspection. One complaint had been made to the manager during this time and was recorded in the complaints book. The records showed the matter was Rosebridge Court DS0000005696.V308481.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 17 appropriately dealt with, within the timescale stated in the complaints procedure. The policy and procedure used by the home for the Protection of Vulnerable Adults (POVA) was the Wigan Inter-agency procedure. A whistle-blowing procedure was also in place and staff interviewed were able to demonstrate their understanding of it. The manager knew and understood the reporting procedure. All staff had received POVA training or were due to receive the training and residents spoken with felt safe living at the home. Rosebridge Court DS0000005696.V308481.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 18 Environment The intended outcomes for Standards 19 – 26 (Older People) and Standards 24 – 30 (Adults 18-65) are: 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. Service users live in a safe, well-maintained environment. Service Users live in a homely, comfortable and safe environment. (YA NMS 24) Service users have access to safe and comfortable indoor and outdoor communal facilities. Shared spaces complement and supplement service users’ individual rooms. (YA NMS 28) Service users have sufficient and suitable lavatories and washing facilities. Service Users toilets and bathrooms provide sufficient privacy and meet their individual needs. (YA NMS 27) Service users have the specialist equipment they require to maximise their independence. (YA NMS 29) Service users’ own rooms suit their needs. Service Users’ own rooms suit their needs and lifestyles. (YA NMS 25) Service users live in safe, comfortable bedrooms with their own possessions around them. Service users’ bedrooms promote their independence. (YA NMS 26) Service users live in safe, comfortable surroundings. Service Users live in a homely, comfortable and safe environment. (YA NMS 24) The home is clean, pleasant and hygienic. The home is clean and hygienic. (YA NMS 30) The Commission considers standards 19 and 26 (Older People) and Standards 24 and 30 (Adults 18-65) the key standards to be inspected. JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for the following standard(s): 19 26 (Older People) 24 30 (Adults 18-65) Quality in this outcome area is good. A safe, clean, pleasant, hygienic and well-maintained building was provided for residents. This judgement has been made using available evidence including a visit to this service. EVIDENCE: Residents live in a homely comfortable and safe environment. There has recently been a complete refurbishment redecoration of the home. Rosebridge Court DS0000005696.V308481.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 19 A tour of the home confirmed that the home was well maintained, clean and free from any offensive odours. Ramped access was provided to the front door and level access throughout each of the two floors. A passenger lift was provided and handrails fitted to corridors throughout. Everyone spoken with thought the home was a safe place to live and work in. Progress has been made in improving signage and orientation aids on the dementia care unit. For example toilet doors have been re-painted red which research has found to be a useful aid to orientation. Further improvements made include the use of rummage bags and fabrics for tactile pleasure situated along the handrails on the corridors of Darby Unit. There has been improved signage for example toilet areas show a picture of a toilet on the door. Grounds were seen to be safe, tidy and accessible. Residents said they looked forward to sitting outside in the good weather. The Environmental Health Department had undertaken a food inspection in June 2006 and the requirements and recommendations have been met. Eight residents spoken to were very pleased with their individual rooms and said that they had ‘brought in a number of personal possessions to make them feel more homely. All bedrooms were fitted with door locks and lockable storage space to ensure resident’s valuables were kept safe. Staff have a master key, which could be used to gain access in an emergency. Residents said staff kept the building clean and odour free, inspection of the premises supported this view. Discussion with two domestics verified that sufficient staff and equipment were provided to ensure the home was maintained in a clean and hygienic condition. An infection control policy was in place and training was provided in this area. Staff spoken with described safe infection control practice. Disposable gloves and colour-coded aprons were provided for staff use and liquid soap was available throughout. Satisfactory practice was in place with regard to disposal of clinical waste. The laundry was sited away from the food preparation area and was seen to be clean and orderly. Sufficient and suitable equipment was provided and laundry was attended to efficiently. Five residents said that they were satisfied with the laundry system at the home and that there was a quick turn around on the clothes sent for cleaning. Rosebridge Court DS0000005696.V308481.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 20 Staffing The intended outcomes for Standards 27 – 30 (Older People) and Standards 31 – 35 (Adults 18-65) are: 27. 28. 29. Service users needs are met by the numbers and skill mix of staff. Service users are supported by an effective staff team. (YA NMS 33) Service users are in safe hands at all times. Service Users are supported by an effective staff team. (YA NMS 32) Service users are supported and protected by the home’s recruitment policy and practices. Service Users benefit from clarity of staff roles and responsibilities. (YA NMS 31) Also Service Users are supported and protected by the home’s recruitment policy and practices. (YA NMS 34) Staff are trained and competent to do their jobs. Service Users individual and joint needs are met by appropriately trained staff. (YA NMS 35) 30. The Commission considers standards 27, 28, 29 and 30 (Older People) and Standards 32, 34 and 35 (Adults 18-65) the key standards to be inspected. JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for the following standard(s): 27, 28, 29 & 30 (Older People) and 32, 34 & 35 (Adults) Quality in this outcome area is good Staff are well trained to ensure they have the competencies to meet residents needs. The deployment of staff throughout the day is sufficient to meet the needs of residents. This judgement has been made using available evidence including a visit to this service. EVIDENCE: Staffing levels within the home were seen to meet the needs of residents. Care staff that undertook their duties in a friendly and caring manner promptly supported residents’ needs. Resident’s confirmed that staff were always respectful and met their needs competently. In the main, residents were satisfied with the support they were given and described staff as “ok”, “nice people”, “alright”, “find time to listen” and “good”. Rosebridge Court DS0000005696.V308481.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 21 Sufficient ancillary staff were employed e.g. domestics, laundry and kitchen assistants, cook and handyman. Staff were in the main knowledgeable about the needs of residents and demonstrated that they understood their own role. Staff files demonstrated that a robust recruitment process is in place, with all appropriate checks being undertaken. These include references, criminal record bureau disclosures and for nursing staff registration with the Nursing and Midwifery Council. New staff undertake a full induction programme that is followed by further in house training. Several staff are presently undertaking National Vocational Qualifications in care at Level Two. The home has an ongoing training programme that staff can apply for. Since the last inspection several staff have received training in abuse awareness and more are booked to attend in the future. Staff spoken with showed that their knowledge had increased since the training and that they were more aware and confident in reporting concerns. Rosebridge Court DS0000005696.V308481.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 22 Management and Administration The intended outcomes for Standards 31 – 38 (Older People) and Standards 8, 10, 23, 37 – 43 (Adults 18-65) are: 31. 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 a well run home. (YA NMS 37) Service users benefit from the ethos, leadership and management approach of the home. (YA NMS 38) The home is run in the best interests of service users. Service Users are consulted on and participate in, all aspects of life in the home. (YA NMS 8) Also Service Users are confident their views underpin all selfmonitoring, review and development by the home. (YA NMS 39) Service users are safeguarded by the accounting and financial procedures of the home. Service Users benefit from competent and accountable management of the service. (YA NMS 43) Service users’ financial interests are safeguarded. Service Users are protected from abuse, neglect and self-harm. (YA NMS 23) Staff are appropriately supervised. Service Users benefit from well supported and supervised staff. (YA NMS 36) Service users’ rights and best interests are safeguarded by the home’s record keeping, policies and procedures. Service Users know that information about them is handled appropriately, and that their confidences are kept. (YA NMS 10) Also Service Users rights and best interests are safeguarded by the home’s policies and procedures. (YA NMS 40) and (YA NMS 41) The health, safety and welfare of service users and staff are promoted and protected. The health, safety and welfare of service users and staff are promoted and protected. (YA NMS 42) 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. The Commission considers standards 31, 33, 35 and 38 (Older People) and Standards 37, 39 and 42 (Adults 18-65) the key standards to be inspected. JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for the following standard(s): 31 33 35 38 (Older People) 37 39 42 ( Younger Adults ) Quality in this outcome area is good The home was well managed and run in the best interests of the residents. This judgement has been made using available evidence including a visit to this service. Rosebridge Court DS0000005696.V308481.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 23 EVIDENCE: Since his appointment the present manager had demonstrated a clear sense of direction and leadership and had made positive changes at the home with regard to management systems, day-to-day supervision and oversight of care planning meetings to determine how residents care needs will be met. Throughout the inspection the inspector was able to evidence the professional, capable and approachable manner in which the manager undertook his role when dealing with residents, staff and visitors. Staff and residents said he was easily accessible and welcomed his ‘open door’ policy as well as providing structure and a sense of direction through more formal meetings. Residents said he made sure he spoke to them on her arrival at the home each day to check out how they were feeling. The manager is presently studying for a management qualification. The need for him to apply for registration as manager with the Commission of Social Care Inspection remains an outstanding requirement from the last inspection. All safety equipment was regularly serviced in accordance with the manufacturers instructions, and the appropriate documentation to support this was available for examination. Rosebridge Court DS0000005696.V308481.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 X 2 X 3 3 4 X 5 X 6 N/A HEALTH AND PERSONAL CARE Standard No Score 7 3 8 3 9 3 10 3 11 X DAILY LIFE AND SOCIAL ACTIVITIES Standard No Score 12 3 13 3 14 3 15 3 COMPLAINTS AND PROTECTION Standard No Score 16 3 17 X 18 3 ENVIRONMENT Standard No Score 19 3 20 X 21 X 22 X 23 X 24 X 25 X 26 3 STAFFING Standard No Score 27 3 28 3 29 3 30 3 MANAGEMENT AND ADMINISTRATION Standard No Score 31 3 32 X 33 3 34 X 35 3 36 X 37 X 38 3 Rosebridge Court DS0000005696.V308481.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 25 YES 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 YA37 Regulation 8 Requirement The manager must make an application to be registered with the Commission for Social Care Inspection. (Outstanding requirement in the timescale of 30/03/05) The home must ensure that arrangements are in place for residents to receive treatment, advice and other services from a medical officer. (Outstanding requirement in the timescale of 01/08/05) Timescale for action 30/11/06 2. YA19 13 30/11/06 RECOMMENDATIONS These recommendations relate to National Minimum Standards and are seen as good practice for the Registered Provider/s to consider carrying out. No. Refer to Standard Good Practice Recommendations Rosebridge Court DS0000005696.V308481.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 26 Commission for Social Care Inspection Bolton, Bury, Rochdale and Wigan Office Turton Suite Paragon Business Park Chorley New Road Horwich, Bolton BL6 6HG 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. Rosebridge Court DS0000005696.V308481.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!