Inspection on 14/12/06 for Roselands

This inspection was carried out on 14th December 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 made no statutory requirements on the home as a result of this inspection and there were no outstanding actions from the previous inspection report.

Other inspections for this house

Roselands 28/11/05

Roselands 08/08/05

Roselands 18/01/05

Roselands 15/09/04

Similar services:

Chirnside House

Keer Sands Residential Home

Ruskin Lodge

Bushell House

Langrigg House

Parkside

Dystlegh Grange

Thornton Lodge

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

CARE HOMES FOR OLDER PEOPLE Roselands Perth Street Heyside Oldham OL2 5LY Lead Inspector Carol Makin Unannounced Inspection 14th December 2006 10:55 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 Roselands DS0000005517.V324187.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. Roselands DS0000005517.V324187.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 3 SERVICE INFORMATION Name of service Roselands Address Perth Street Heyside Oldham OL2 5LY 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) 01706881720 Dr Ajoy Kumar Ghosh Mrs Jacqueline Winterburn Care Home 19 Category(ies) of Dementia - over 65 years of age (4), Old age, registration, with number not falling within any other category (9), of places Physical disability over 65 years of age (3), Sensory Impairment over 65 years of age (3) Roselands DS0000005517.V324187.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 4 SERVICE INFORMATION Conditions of registration: 1. Service users to include up to 9 OP, up to 4 DE (E), up to 3 PD (E) and up to 3 SI (E). 28th November 2005 Date of last inspection Brief Description of the Service: Roselands is a privately owned care home, registered to accommodate 19 people. The home is situated in the Heyside area of Oldham and is within easy reach of public transport and local amenities. The building is a detached property with car parking space to the front and gardens to the rear. Accommodation for service users is provided on the ground and first floors and ramped access has been provided externally. There are 13 single bedrooms, of which seven have en-suite toilet facilities, and three double bedrooms, one of which has en-suite facilities. The weekly fees are £313.88 - £350-00, which does not include the following: hairdressing; dry cleaning; trips out, and toiletries and newspapers other than those provided as standard by the owners. A copy of the commission’s most recent inspection report is available in the office, which is stated on a notice on the office door. Roselands DS0000005517.V324187.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 5 SUMMARY This is an overview of what the inspector found during the inspection. A key inspection of Roselands has been carried out which included an unannounced site visit to the home on 14th December 2006. During the visit, the inspector spoke with residents, visitors, the manager, and care staff, examined records and looked round the building. What the service does well: What has improved since the last inspection? What they could do better: There were no areas identified on this inspection as needing improvement. Please contact the provider for advice of actions taken in response to this Roselands DS0000005517.V324187.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 6 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. Roselands DS0000005517.V324187.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 7 DETAILS OF INSPECTOR FINDINGS CONTENTS Choice of Home (Standards 1–6) Health and Personal Care (Standards 7-11) Daily Life and Social Activities (Standards 12-15) Complaints and Protection (Standards 16-18) Environment (Standards 19-26) Staffing (Standards 27-30) Management and Administration (Standards 31-38) Scoring of Outcomes Statutory Requirements Identified During the Inspection Roselands DS0000005517.V324187.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 8 Choice of Home The intended outcomes for Standards 1 – 6 are: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Prospective service users have the information they need to make an informed choice about where to live. Each service user has a written contract/ statement of terms and conditions with the home. No service user moves into the home without having had his/her needs assessed and been assured that these will be met. Service users and their representatives know that the home they enter will meet their needs. Prospective service users and their relatives and friends have an opportunity to visit and assess the quality, facilities and suitability of the home. Service users assessed and referred solely for intermediate care are helped to maximise their independence and return home. The Commission considers Standards 3 and 6 the key standards to be inspected. JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for the following standard(s): 3&6 Quality in this outcome area is good. Assessments of prospective residents care needs were completed before they moved into the home, thereby ensuring that the home is able to meet residents’ needs. This judgement has been made using available evidence including a visit to this service. EVIDENCE: The residents’ files which were inspected, contained a pre-admission assessment of their care needs, which had been done by the manager in their own home or when they had visited Roselands prior to admission. Prospective residents are invited to visit the home to have a look round and meet the residents and staff, and stay for a meal if they wish to do so. Intermediate care is not available at Roselands. Standard 6 is therefore not applicable. Roselands DS0000005517.V324187.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 9 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): 7,8,9,10,11. Quality in this outcome area is good. Residents’ health, personal and social care needs were set out in an individual plan of care, and were met in the home. Procedures for dealing with medicines were appropriate ensuring good health was promoted. Residents’ rights were respected and maintained throughout their life in the home, by the staff. This judgement has been made using available evidence including a visit to this service. EVIDENCE: The files which were inspected, contained clear, structured care plans, and risk assessments which had been signed by the resident, and reviewed each month. Roselands DS0000005517.V324187.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 10 Records showed that residents were weighed on or within 2 days of admission, and subsequently each month, or more frequently if there were particular issues regarding a resident’s weight. An example of this was seen on one of the files inspected, which showed that the weight was being monitored weekly because the resident had a history of weight loss. A care plan and risk assessment regarding weight loss were in place, and the resident’s food and fluid intake was monitored in the daily reports, and on separate charts, and a referral had been made to the dietician at the local hospital. A nutritional assessment using the, ‘Malnutrition Universal Screening Tool’ (MUST) system, was done routinely for residents. Residents felt that they were well looked after in the home, and that their health and social care needs were met. Visitors who spoke with the inspector shared this view and made comments such as: “The treatment of residents is excellent”; “We can’t fault the service here”, “ My sister visits at night and she said that the staff who are on then are absolutely brilliant”. Special reference was made to the care that had been provided for a resident who died at the home. The comments included: “The care here is second to none. Mum was in bed for 3 months and she had no bed sores, she was spotlessly clean, and very comfortable”; “The staff were excellent, they were going in to her every half hour, and they changed their shifts to do this”, “All our family have made special mention about the good service here”. The medicine records which were selected for inspection, were in order. Information that was provided for the inspection showed that 9 members of staff had been given training in relation to medication. References to maintaining residents’ independence and promoting dignity were noted in care plans. The residents and visitors who spoke with the inspector confirmed that the staff in the home respected people’s rights to privacy and dignity, and they were satisfied with the care provided. Comments included: “I certainly do think that staff respect residents’ privacy and dignity, they offer to take Mum to her own room when we are visiting”, “they respect my privacy”. Visitors also said that staff kept them informed about their relative’s health. Roselands DS0000005517.V324187.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 11 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): 12,13,14,15. Quality in this outcome area is good. Residents were able to exercise choice within the daily routine of the home providing them with autonomy over their daily lives. Activities were overall sufficient to meet resident’s needs, and provide them with stimulation. Residents were able to maintain contact with relatives and friends, providing them with links with the wider community. There was evidence that residents were offered a wholesome and varied diet, and that they were able to exercise control over their diet. This judgement has been made using available evidence including a visit to this service. Roselands DS0000005517.V324187.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 12 EVIDENCE: Residents felt that the routines of daily living within the home were flexible, and enabled them to make choices. This was also reflected in care files, which noted individual preferences such as choice of when residents liked to have a bath, and how they liked to spend their time. Comments made by residents showed that they also had the choice of not joining in with activities if they wished, e.g.“ There’s entertainment if you want it”, and “I like watching my tele in here (own room), I’m a real tele addict, it’s my choice, I like being independent”. An Activities Organiser spent time in the home each week, working with residents in groups and individually to meet their needs, Comments from residents and relatives included: “He comes in for 2 days each week, and does quizzes and games such skittles, he plays cards with me too”, “They have entertainment, but I’m not too well at the moment so I’m watching the TV in here (own room), and seeing my visitors”, “ He comes in and does games such as memory stimulation and skittles. They go out in the summer, and they have birthday parties and other events.” Residents and relatives confirmed that visiting times were flexible and that visitors were made welcome by the staff. Comments included: “They come when they want”; “My daughter comes every night, she’s offered a cup of tea or coffee”; “They come any time, and they’re made welcome”, “We can visit any time, and there’s tea or coffee offered every time”. The menu for the day was displayed in the hallway together with a list of the hot alternatives that were available. Comments from residents about the food were overall favourable, e.g. “It’s lovely food, I enjoy it very much”, “It’s nice”, and “ There’s enough and you have a choice”. Roselands DS0000005517.V324187.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 13 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): 16 & 18 Quality in this outcome area is good. Residents and their visitors were confident that any complaints they may have would be listened to, taken seriously and acted upon. Training for staff in relation to the protection of vulnerable adults from abuse, improved measures within the home, for protecting residents from possible risk of harm. This judgement has been made using available evidence including a visit to this service. EVIDENCE: A copy of the home’s complaints procedure was in each bedroom, and displayed elsewhere in the home. The address of the Commission for Social Care Inspection had been updated on the procedure. A book was kept to log any complaints made to the home, and a box for comments, complaints or compliments was available in the hallway near to the entrance of the home. The residents and visitors who spoke with the inspector, said that they were confident the manager would deal with any complaints appropriately. Comments made included: “I’ve no complaints, but I would go to the manager if necessary”; “I haven’t had any problems, but if I did I’d speak to Jackie”; “I’m quite happy really, I’ve no complaints at all, I’m well looked after, if I did have any I’d speak to Jackie, she’s very good”, “ I’d speak to Jackie if there was anything, she would sort it out”. Roselands DS0000005517.V324187.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 14 The manager said that training in relation to abuse of vulnerable adults had been provided for all members of staff. Care staff who spoke with the inspector were able to demonstrate an awareness of different forms of abuse, and knew what do if an incident of abuse was to occur in the home. Relevant policies and procedures had been provided by Oldham Social Services, and were available in the home, for staff guidance. Roselands DS0000005517.V324187.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 15 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): 19 & 26 Quality in this outcome area is good. The accommodation was clean and decorated to a satisfactory standard, and residents were able to benefit from a programme of improvements, routine maintenance and renewal of furniture and fittings. This judgement has been made using available evidence including a visit to this service. EVIDENCE: The accommodation was clean, free from unpleasant odours, and furnished and decorated to a satisfactory standard. Residents and visitors said that the home was always clean and odour free, e.g. “ It’s always clean here and there are no smells”. Roselands DS0000005517.V324187.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 16 Since the last inspection, new non-slip floor covering had been fitted in the kitchen, and soap dispensers and paper towels had been provided in toilets. Of the bedrooms that were seen, one had been refurbished, and another had been redecorated, had new bedcovers and curtains, and the wardrobes had been cosmetically improved by being repainted and the doors decorated to match the wall paper. Residents were satisfied with their rooms, and they were able to bring in furniture and other personal possessions of their choice to meet their needs, and make the rooms homely. Roselands DS0000005517.V324187.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 17 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): 27,28,29,30. Quality in this outcome area is good. Staffing levels within the home were sufficient to meet the needs of the residents. The procedures used for recruiting new staff, provided protection for residents. Residents were able to benefit from staff being provided with a good training programme. This judgement has been made using available evidence including a visit to this service. EVIDENCE: Staffing rotas that were provided for the inspection indicated that the staffing levels within the home were sufficient to meet the needs of the residents. Members of staff, residents and visitors, who spoke with the inspector, felt that the home was adequately staffed. The manager said that there were no staff vacancies at that time, and 1 person’s application for employment had been processed and she was ready to start work should a vacancy occur. The files of 2 members of staff were inspected, and the procedures for recruiting new staff were found to be satisfactory. Roselands DS0000005517.V324187.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 18 The manager reported that the programme of NVQ training was continuing. Most of the existing members of staff had achieved the qualification, training was in progress for others, and new staff were being employed on the understanding that they enrolled to for the training. Records of training, and discussions with the manager and staff, showed that a good training and development programme was in place. The programme included, ‘Skills for Care’ induction for new staff, medication (see S9),‘abuse’ (See S18), safe working practices (See S38), and some specialist training relating to the categories of need for which the home is registered i.e. Parkinson’s Disease, dementia, optical awareness, and life story. The manager said that all members of staff are automatically put forward for training with Oldham Social Services under the new ‘Partnership Agreement’. Roselands DS0000005517.V324187.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 19 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): 31,33,35,38 Quality in this outcome area is good. Management and administration systems are in place resulting in the home being run in the best interests of the residents. This judgement has been made using available evidence including a visit to this service. EVIDENCE: The manager stated that she had completed NVQ Level 4 in care, and three units of the Registered Manager’s Award, which are needed to meet standard 31of the national minimum standards. Roselands DS0000005517.V324187.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 20 Resident’s and relatives who spoke with the inspector were very complimentary in their comments about the manager and staff, e.g. “Jackie (the manager) is a really good person, she puts us all at ease, and nothing is too much trouble“,“ All of the staff have got time for you, even when they’re busy they always make that extra bit of time for you”. The quality monitoring system includes an ongoing programme of surveys of residents and other interested parties, which are organised and processed by staff at the home’s head office. There had been staff and residents’ surveys during the 12 months period prior to this inspection, and a survey of visiting health care professional’s was in progress at the time of the inspection. Staff meetings are held and minutes are taken. Staff said that the meetings were useful, and they were able to ‘have their say’. As noted in the reports of previous inspections, residents preferred to speak to an independent advocate individually rather than have meetings. Unfortunately the advocate who had previously done this had left, and a member of staff from head office was fulfilling the role, as an interim measure until the manager is able to find a replacement. Posters giving details of ‘Care Aware’ and ‘Age Concern’ were displayed in the home. Records of money held in safekeeping for residents were selected at random for inspection, and were found to be in order. The provider’s monthly report’s had been completed and as required in accordance with Regulation 26. Tests and checks in relation to fire precautions had been done at the prescribed intervals, fire drills had been held in September, November and December 2006, and training in fire safety procedures was provided for staff by an external trainer in November 2006. Records showed that the emergency call system and the window opening restrictors were checked each week. Reports of servicing and an independent inspection of the passenger lift and the hoist were available. Recording of accidents had improved since the last inspection, and risk assessments were in place to consider why the falls had occurred, together with measures taken to prevent further falls. The manager provided the following information, regarding training which had been undertaken by staff in relation to safe working practices: Moving and handling - all staff 4 staff facilitators training Food hygiene - 5 staff Fire Safety - all staff Roselands DS0000005517.V324187.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 21 First aid - 9 staff Infection Control - all staff (in house) 3 staff accredited training Health & Safety - 5 staff Roselands DS0000005517.V324187.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 22 Roselands DS0000005517.V324187.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 23 SCORING OF OUTCOMES This page summarises the assessment of the extent to which the National Minimum Standards for Care Homes for Older People have been met and uses the following scale. The scale ranges from: 4 Standard Exceeded 2 Standard Almost Met (Commendable) (Minor Shortfalls) 3 Standard Met 1 Standard Not Met (No Shortfalls) (Major Shortfalls) “X” in the standard met box denotes standard not assessed on this occasion “N/A” in the standard met box denotes standard not applicable CHOICE OF HOME Standard No Score 1 2 3 4 5 6 ENVIRONMENT Standard No Score 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 X X 3 X X N/A HEALTH AND PERSONAL CARE Standard No Score 7 3 8 3 9 3 10 3 11 3 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 3 X X X X X 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 3 X 3 X X 3 Roselands DS0000005517.V324187.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 24 Are there any outstanding requirements from the last inspection? No 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. Standard Regulation Requirement Timescale for action 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 Roselands DS0000005517.V324187.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 25 Commission for Social Care Inspection Ashton-under-Lyne Area Office 2nd Floor, Heritage Wharf Portland Place Ashton-u-Lyne Lancs OL7 0QD 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 Roselands DS0000005517.V324187.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 26 - 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!