Inspection on 21/05/07 for Rosedale

This inspection was carried out on 21st May 2007.

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

The inspector found there to be outstanding requirements from the previous inspection report. These are things the inspector asked to be changed, but found they had not done. The inspector also made 7 statutory requirements (actions the home must comply with) as a result of this inspection.

Other inspections for this house

Rosedale 29/04/08

Rosedale 27/06/06

Rosedale 08/12/05

Rosedale 24/05/05

Rosedale 21/12/04

Rosedale 02/11/04

Rosedale 05/09/02

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

CARE HOME ADULTS 18-65 Rosedale 42a Manchester Road Haslingden Lancashire BB4 5ST Lead Inspector Mrs Lynn Mitton Unannounced Inspection 21st May 2007 10:00 Rosedale DS0000009612.V337158.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 Rosedale DS0000009612.V337158.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. Rosedale DS0000009612.V337158.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 3 SERVICE INFORMATION Name of service Rosedale Address 42a Manchester Road Haslingden Lancashire BB4 5ST 01706 222066 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) Mrs Bridget Mary Healy Mrs Sarah Jane Taylor Care Home 6 Category(ies) of Mental disorder, excluding learning disability or registration, with number dementia (6) of places Rosedale DS0000009612.V337158.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 4 SERVICE INFORMATION Conditions of registration: Date of last inspection 27th June 2006 Brief Description of the Service: Rosedale is registered to provide accommodation and social care for 6 adults with a mental illness. The house is a Victorian building and offers spacious accommodation with small garden areas to the front and rear. It is situated in the centre of Haslingden town centre, close to all local amenities. Accommodation is provided on two floors in six single bedrooms. There is a lounge, a games room and dining room on the ground floor. There are designated smoking areas for residents. Fees at Rosedale range from £550.00 - £1253.50 per week. There was some information available to potential service users advising them of the home and about the type of service they could expect. Rosedale DS0000009612.V337158.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 5 SUMMARY This is an overview of what the inspector found during the inspection. A key unannounced inspection, which included a visit to the home, was conducted on 21st and 23rd May 2007. Time was spent case tracking resident’s files and staff files, viewing various policies, procedures and records. The inspector also spoke to the registered manager, members of staff and residents and visitors to the home. Throughout the report there are references to the “tracking process”, this is a method whereby the inspector focuses on a small representative group of residents. Records regarding these people were examined. The pre-inspection questionnaire had not been returned and should have contained information about the home to assist the inspection process. Residents returned 4 questionnaires; and their comments are included in the report. What the service does well: Needs assessments identified the care needs of residents so that support staff would have a clear understanding of how they needed to support them. All residents questionnaires returned to the commission indicated that members of staff always treat the residents well. Staff spoken to and observed by the inspector demonstrated an understanding of the needs of the residents. Residents were consulted about the day-to-day running of the home and their views acted upon. One resident said; “I like everything about living here, there’s nothing I’d change. The food is good – we help to make it and we chose what we’d like to eat every week and we go shopping”. Information on care and health plans enabled support staff to meet resident’s needs. Residents were supported and given opportunities to make decisions in their day-to-day life. Residents had opportunities to maintain their independence and be part of their local community. One resident told the inspector; “The staff here are fine, they do a good job of supporting me, and I am happy here. If I wasn’t happy I would talk to Sarah or any of the staff”. Rosedale DS0000009612.V337158.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 6 Individual dietary needs were catered for. Residents were encouraged to participate in shopping, planning and preparation of meals to further their independence. Staff spoken to had some understanding of adult protection issues, ensuring that any allegations would be dealt with appropriately. 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. Rosedale DS0000009612.V337158.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 7 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 Rosedale DS0000009612.V337158.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 8 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. JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for the following standard(s): YA2 & YA5 Quality in this outcome area is good. This judgement has been made using available evidence including a visit to this service. Needs assessments identified the care needs of residents so that support staff would have a clear understanding of how they could meet them. Contracts explained what residents could expect, and what was expected of them in order for them to live at Rosedale. EVIDENCE: There had been two new admissions since the last inspection. Information had been obtained prior to admission, and the updated assessment format was being used. Potential new residents were also encouraged to visit Rosedale prior to their admission. Resident’s contracts were seen. These now explained the terms and conditions of their residence at Rosedale, and included the costing of the placement. Rosedale DS0000009612.V337158.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 9 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. JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for the following standard(s): YA6, YA7 & YA9 Quality in this outcome area is good. This judgement has been made using available evidence including a visit to this service. Information on care and health plans enabled support staff to meet resident’s needs. Residents were supported and given opportunities to make decisions in their day-to-day life. The risk assessment and management framework did not fully support residents in taking responsible risks. EVIDENCE: Two residents care plans were examined in detail. These gave clear and detailed information about the level of support they needed to enable staff to ensure continuity of care. This included reference to the resident’s physical and mental health. The care plans case tracked showed that residents had been involved in their compilation. The care plans had been reviewed recently, with all relevant parties involved. All residents had a next of kin or advocate to act on their behalf if so required. Resident’s personal allowances were kept safe in the office and given to residents on their request and the inspector witnessed this. The registered Rosedale DS0000009612.V337158.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 10 person is appointee for all the residents. Residents had their own bank account. The inspector and registered manager discussed how residents could have better access to their own monies. The inspector was satisfied that residents had opportunities on a daily basis to make day to day choices about their lives, and witnessed a number of examples of this. There were risk assessments in place, and these had been recently reviewed. Risk assessments were being completed each time an activity took place. The inspector and registered manager discussed at length how the format could be further developed and improved to ensure that once a risk has been identified, appropriate management strategies had been developed and were implemented. Rosedale DS0000009612.V337158.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 11 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. JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for the following standard(s): YA12, YA13, YA15, YA16 & YA17 Quality in this outcome area is good. This judgement has been made using available evidence including a visit to this service. Residents had opportunities to maintain their independence and be part of their local community. Individual dietary needs were catered for and residents were encouraged to participate in shopping, planning and preparation of meals to further their independence. EVIDENCE: Since the previous inspection two residents had moved on from the home into more independent living. This was evidence that the rehabilitative programmes were, at times, effective. Residents told the inspector about how they were able to make day-to-day decisions about their lives, and had opportunities to fulfil their potential. Residents were seen to come and go from the house with autonomy, using the phone to make arrangements to meet friends and family etc., Rosedale DS0000009612.V337158.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 12 Residents were able to maintain family links, and had regular access to their local community. Reference to family support was made in the care plan. Resident’s visitors were seen being made welcome at Rosedale. On one day of the inspection, one resident went out with his girlfriend, two residents were visiting their family, 2 residents went out to Towneley Hall with staff support, and 1 resident was at home. Activity plans were seen on residents care plan case tracked. The inspector advised the registered manager about a voluntary gardening scheme that may be of interest to some of the residents. One resident works voluntarily at the Salvation Army half day every 2 weeks. One resident told the inspector; Staff always knock on my door first before coming in”. Another resident said; “I like living here best. I can make decisions in my life now, the outreach team help me to do activities and I’ve plenty of things going for me, I’ve just got to get involved”. The inspector was advised that a house meeting was held each Monday when a plan was made of the forthcoming weekly activities and menus were discussed and arranged. Some minutes of these meetings were seen, and issues discussed included, how to make a complaint, smoking – how the new legislation will affect the residents, room repairs, holidays, medication, privacy, new residents welcomed to the home, washing up, laundry and bedroom days, weekly activities and independent lunches. Not all the minutes for these meetings were available. The inspector was advised that no plans had been arranged for residents to have a holiday this year, although resident’s suggestions for venues had been sought. The inspector advised that this should be pursued as soon as possible. One resident was supported to attend his church. The inspector observed residents being spoken to with respect and being encouraged to take responsibility for their day-to-day living arrangements. Support staff were also observed respecting residents rights and wishes. The inspector saw records of food consumed by each resident. Some omissions had been made to these records and the inspector advised the importance of ensuring accurate records. Residents made their own meals with staff support as required, except tea, which was usually a communal meal. Residents were advised individually about nutritionally balanced diets. Menus were discussed and planned during residents meeting. Rosedale DS0000009612.V337158.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 13 The inspector was told that a housekeeping budget of £180.00 per week was made available to pay for• All food for residents • Their transport costs • Staff mileage • DVD hire • Entrance fee’s • Stationary • All cleaning products • Sundries such as toilet paper and light bulbs • Small electrical appliances such as kettles and toasters. Although the inspector did not think this was a generous budget there was little evidence this was the case. Staff, however, did say there were times when they bought items (light bulbs, for example) when the budget ran out. As long as they continue to do this, any budgetary shortfall will be masked. Rosedale DS0000009612.V337158.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 14 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. JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for the following standard(s): YA18, YA19 & YA20 Quality in this outcome area is adequate. This judgement has been made using available evidence including a visit to this service. Personal support was offered in accordance with resident’s needs and wishes. Resident’s health needs were met. Policies and practices for managing and administering medication did not fully safeguard residents. EVIDENCE: The inspector was advised that the residents at Rosedale needed reminding to maintain their own personal care. Reference to ensuring that resident’s privacy needs were met had been recorded in a recent residents meeting. Staff spoken to by the inspector could explain how they would promote resident’s privacy and dignity. The care plan format demonstrated that service users mental health and physical health needs were being given due care and attention. The inspector examined two care plans, and these included an OK health check. These had been recently completed. All residents were registered with a GP and consultant psychiatrist. Other health professionals such as Community Psychiatric Nurses were also involved Rosedale DS0000009612.V337158.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 15 with some residents. 3 residents have their own dentist; the others rely on the emergency dental service. 1 resident sees a chiropodist. The home used a blister pack system medication administration system. Administration records seen by the inspector appeared in good order. The inspector was advised that 4 staff members had undertaken safe administration of medication training, 2 members of staff were due to begin this training in July 2007. No resident was self-medicating and consent forms for the administration were in place for those case tracked. The inspector advised that the current practice of how medication is administered whilst residents are out of the home should be reviewed. The policies and procedures for the safe dispensation of medication should be updated and in accordance with the Royal Pharmaceutical Guidelines. The inspector and registered manager discussed the security of the drugs given that the drugs cabinet is clearly visible from the ground floor office and the busy location of the home. Rosedale DS0000009612.V337158.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 16 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. JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for the following standard(s): YA22 & YA23 Quality in this outcome area is adequate. This judgement has been made using available evidence including a visit to this service. The complaints procedure did not give clear direction as to how a complaint could be made. Staff spoken to had an understanding of adult protection issues, ensuring that any allegations would be dealt with appropriately. EVIDENCE: There had been no complaints received by the Commission or the home since the last inspection. The complaints policy was on display in the dining room. Policies and practices regarding concerns complaints needed updating to include the Commission for Social Care Inspectorate’s details and to recording complaints and explaining how they had been dealt with. The inspector noted that making complaints was an issue routinely raised during residents meetings. Staff spoken to by the inspector knew what to do should they have any concerns about resident’s wellbeing. They were also aware of whistle blowing, and said they would have no hesitation in doing so should they need to. Staff advised the inspector of the different types of abuse and what they would do if they had any concerns. Although none of the staff had undertaken Protection of Vulnerable Adults training this was arranged during the inspection. Rosedale DS0000009612.V337158.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 17 The prevention of Abuse policy was seen and discussed with the registered manager. Further detail needed to be included, for example, confidentiality and definitions of abuse. There was a policy on whistle blowing in place. The inspector observed that residents at Rosedale were assertive and had no hesitation in voicing their opinions. Interaction between staff and residents was seen to be respectful with staff showing an understanding of individual needs. Rosedale DS0000009612.V337158.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 18 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. JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for the following standard(s): YA24 & YA30 Quality in this outcome area is poor. This judgement has been made using available evidence including a visit to this service. The standard of décor and furnishings does not afford residents a comfortable environment to live in. Hot water must be maintained at a safe temperature at all outlets to safeguards residents from the risk of scalding. The standard of cleanliness and hygiene was to a satisfactory standard. EVIDENCE: Although the payphone had been taken out, the residents had access to the homes cord free phone, so they could have conversations in privacy. There was a large damp patch in the front lounge outside wall and wallpaper was discoloured and loose. A number of light bulbs were not working, however, these were replaced during the inspection. Members of staff informed the inspector that they had purchased light bulbs out of their own pockets because the budget they were allocated to buy household products was insufficient to buy such items. Rosedale DS0000009612.V337158.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 19 Bedroom 1 was in need of redecoration and a new carpet. The double-glazing windows did not have effective seals in bedroom 1, 2, and 3. This meant that residents could not see out of their window. The resident’s smoking room needed more efficient ventilation to provide a healthier environment. The radiator in bedroom 6 was not fitted to the wall. Hot water temperatures were found to be above 45 degrees centigrade. For example, the downstairs bathroom was 58.4 degrees, the showers adjacent to bedroom 2 and 3 was 48.4 degrees and bedroom 6 was 54 degrees centigrade. The laundry facilities comprised of one commercial and one domestic washing machine and one domestic tumble dryer and these were in working order. Rosedale DS0000009612.V337158.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. JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for the following standard(s): YA32, YA33, YA34, & YA35 Quality in this outcome area is adequate. This judgement has been made using available evidence including a visit to this service. Recruitment and selection procedures did not fully protect residents from harm or abuse. Staffing levels were not always high enough for to enable staff to meet the needs of individual residents. EVIDENCE: There were no staff vacancies at the time of the inspection, however one member of staff had been off sick since the 7th May, and the existing staff were not able to cover these hours. This meant that one resident who had funding for 1:1 support was not receiving this, and this had been the case since the 7th May. According to the rota, there were usually two staff members on duty from 9am – 5pm and two staff members from 5 – 10pm. One staff member worked wake and watch and one slept in overnight. The inspector and registered manager discussed having a “security net” of bank or agency staff to cover for sickness and leave, especially as the staff team only consisted of 6 people. Rosedale DS0000009612.V337158.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 21 The inspector case tracked two staff files. These files did not contain all the information that demonstrated appropriate checks had been taken to ensure that residents were safeguarded. There was not a CRB check evidence for one staff member. It was also noted that there was no evidence of induction training on one staff member’s file. Two care staff had completed NVQ 2 training, 3 members of staff were undertaking this training. One member of staff had the RMN qualification. A training matrix was in place the inspector advised that this should be updated to contain the date that training had been undertaken. During the inspection, the registered manager arranged 1st aid training for the staff. Staff meetings had taken place 3 times since the last inspection in June 2006. Rosedale DS0000009612.V337158.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 22 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. JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for the following standard(s): YA37, YA39 & YA43 Quality in this outcome area is adequate. This judgement has been made using available evidence including a visit to this service. An experienced and appropriately trained manager ran the home. Residents were consulted about the day-to-day running of the home and their views acted upon. The lack of safety certificates for electrical and gas appliances leaves residents and staff at risk. EVIDENCE: The registered manager had completed NVQ4 training in care and management. Weekly discussions with the registered manager and registered person usually took place. Managers meetings were held three monthly. Rosedale DS0000009612.V337158.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 23 Residents meeting took place weekly. Residents were observed by the inspectors to be consulted about making day to day decisions about their lives. A residents survey was last conducted in October 2006. The results of this had not been collated. Residents meetings were held most weeks, when resident’s views were sought about the running of the home. The inspector was advised that a new boiler had been fitted since the previous inspection, however these temperatures continue to be excessively hot. This issue has been outstanding since the previous inspection in December 2005 and the inspector advised must be resolved as a matter of urgency. The inspector noted that records were made of the water temps each week. The 5year electrical and PAT certificates were still not available to the inspector nor were the gas safety or boiler certificate. This issue was also outstanding at the previous inspection in May 2006. The fire book was seen and was up to date; fire-fighting appliances had been serviced in November 2006. A fire risk assessment was in place, the inspector advised that this document should be dated. The training matrix indicated that all staff had completed fire safety training. 1st Aid training was planned for 26th June 2007 for all staff and only one member of staff had completed the basic food hygiene training and 2 members of staff had completed Infection Control training. Rosedale DS0000009612.V337158.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 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 X 2 3 3 X 4 X 5 3 INDIVIDUAL NEEDS AND CHOICES Standard No 6 7 8 9 10 Score CONCERNS AND COMPLAINTS Standard No Score 22 2 23 2 ENVIRONMENT Standard No Score 24 1 25 X 26 X 27 X 28 X 29 X 30 3 STAFFING Standard No Score 31 X 32 2 33 2 34 2 35 2 36 X CONDUCT AND MANAGEMENT OF THE HOME Standard No 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 Score 3 3 X 2 X LIFESTYLES Standard No Score 11 X 12 3 13 2 14 X 15 3 16 3 17 3 PERSONAL AND HEALTHCARE SUPPORT Standard No 18 19 20 21 Score 3 3 2 X 3 X 1 X X 1 X Rosedale DS0000009612.V337158.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 YA22 Regulation 22 & Schedule 4 (11) Requirement The complaint policies and practices must be contain up to date information and a system must be in place to record complaints and how they are dealt with. It must be ensured that staff training is in place to prevent residents from harm, abuse or being placed at risk or harm or abuse. The policy must contain relevant information. The home must be maintained and adequate facilities provided, for example, bedrooms decorated, double glazing seals repaired or replaced, and damp patch in the front lounge attended to. The registered person must ensure at all times suitably qualified competent and experienced persons are working at the home in such numbers as are appropriate for the health and welfare of residents. This requirement outstanding from 24/05/05 A thorough recruitment process must be in place that DS0000009612.V337158.R01.S.doc Timescale for action 31/08/07 2 YA23 13(6) 29/06/07 3 YA24 16(2) 31/08/07 4 YA33 18 (1) 29/06/07 5 YA34 Schedule 2 29/06/07 Rosedale Version 5.2 Page 26 6 YA35 12,17,18 &19 7 YA42 12(1a) demonstrates all checks have been made to protect the residents; this includes proof of a CRB check. Persons working in the care home must receive training appropriate to the work they perform, for example, food hygiene and infection control training. This requirement outstanding from 24/05/05 There must be proper arrangements in place to ensure the health and welfare of service users, for example, gas and electrical safety certificates and hot water being at a safe temperature. This requirement outstanding from 24/05/05 31/08/07 29/06/07 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 Refer to Standard YA9 YA17 YA20 Good Practice Recommendations Risk assessments should be completed for each resident not each activity, and relate to the risk for each person. Accurate records should be made of each resident’s daily diet. The registered manager should ensure that policies and procedures for medicines management be reviewed in line with the current Royal Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain guidelines 50 of support staff should have obtained the NVQ 2 qualification. Quality Assurance survey results should be collated. 2. 3. YA32 YA39 Rosedale DS0000009612.V337158.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 27 Commission for Social Care Inspection Lancashire Area Office Unit 1 Tustin Court Portway Preston PR2 2YQ 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 Rosedale DS0000009612.V337158.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!