Inspection on 20/07/06 for Rosemont

This inspection was carried out on 20th July 2006.

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

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

Other inspections for this house

Rosemont 22/04/09

Rosemont 06/12/08

Rosemont 22/04/08

Rosemont 06/06/07

Rosemont 07/03/06

Rosemont 03/08/05

Rosemont 23/02/05

Rosemont 28/09/04

Similar services:

Fairfields Country Rest Home

Poldhu

Queensmount

Trevaylor Manor

Didsbury Court Rest Home

Belma

Hunters Care Centre

Manor Lodge

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

CARE HOMES FOR OLDER PEOPLE Rosemont Yealm Road Newton Ferrers Plymouth Devon PL8 1BX Lead Inspector Graham Thomas Unannounced Inspection 20th July 2006 9:00 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 Rosemont DS0000003798.V293908.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. Rosemont DS0000003798.V293908.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 3 SERVICE INFORMATION Name of service Rosemont Address Yealm Road Newton Ferrers Plymouth Devon PL8 1BX 01752 872445 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) Mr D M Beckhurst Mr D M Beckhurst Care Home 19 Category(ies) of Old age, not falling within any other category registration, with number (19) of places Rosemont DS0000003798.V293908.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 4 SERVICE INFORMATION Conditions of registration: None Date of last inspection 7th March 2006 Brief Description of the Service: Rosemont is a care home registered to provide care for 19 people in the category of old age only. It is owned and managed by Mr Beckhurst, who is assisted by Mrs Coleman who is known as the Matron. It currently accommodates 13 older people in single rooms. Two rooms have en suite facilities. The premises comprise a large, older property which stands in its own grounds, overlooking the picturesque creek of Newton Ferrers. There are a dining room, two lounges and a conservatory. The home has a stair lift and ramps. Those service users with limited mobility are provided with accommodation on the ground and mezzanine floors as there are a few steps remaining to access the first floor. Adjoining the property are two privately owned flats which are not connected to the care home. The proprietor and his family live in one flat and the second is used as staff accommodation. Current weekly fees range from £350 to £450 Rosemont DS0000003798.V293908.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 5 SUMMARY This is an overview of what the inspector found during the inspection. Before the inspection, information was sent to the Commission by the Registered Provider. The home was visited by the Inspector on 2 consecutive days. Nine service users, three staff, two visiting relatives and the Registered Provider were interviewed. Written information was received from two relatives, a GP, a District Nurse, and two relatives. The Inspector toured the home and examined various records. These included care plans, staff files and health and safety records. What the service does well: 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. Rosemont DS0000003798.V293908.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 6 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 Rosemont DS0000003798.V293908.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 7 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 at least once during a 12 month period. JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for the following standard(s): 3 and 6 Quality in this outcome area is adequate. This judgement has been made using available evidence including a visit to this service. Prospective service users cannot be assured that the home will meet their needs. EVIDENCE: The process of moving into the home was described by one relative as relaxed and open. The opportunity had been offered to some service users to stay at the home prior to moving in. Other service users confirmed that they or their relatives had been able to visit the home before making a decision. Assessments and care plans for two recently admitted service were not available for inspection. Rosemont DS0000003798.V293908.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 8 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 at least once during a 12 month period. JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for the following standard(s): 7, 8, 9 and 10 Quality in this outcome area is adequate. This judgement has been made using available evidence including a visit to this service. Service users’ day to day personal and healthcare needs are reasonably well met. However, this is undermined by poor care planning practice in some instances. EVIDENCE: Well-organised care plans had been produced for most service users which contained individual risk assessments. However, no plans were available for two service users, one of whom had been admitted five months previously. A notice was issued requiring these plans to be produced by 27th July. There were no photographs of service users in the plans as required by regulation. Plans showed evidence of review and had been signed by service users. However, the reviews were not at the required monthly intervals. Copies of the plans were inserted into the daily records file for staff reference. Many of the copies included in this file were not up to date and did not reflect the individual’s current needs. Staff stated they did not routinely access the up to date care plan files. The daily records kept by staff provided useful information about service users’ changing needs. They did not always demonstrate how elements of individual plans had been pursued. For example, an objective in Rosemont DS0000003798.V293908.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 9 one plan was to “encourage and support activities that (….) can do”. The daily records did not show if, how or when this had been followed through. Individual plans demonstrated how the home was supporting service users to maintain their independence in such matters as self-medication and walking to and from the village. This support was confirmed by service users and their relatives. During a tour of the premises, aids and adaptations were seen around the home including walking and toilet frames, grab rails. Service users confirmed access both to routine and specialist health care. This included hearing and sight tests. Feedback from healthcare professionals suggested that the home provided good healthcare support for able people but that communication with the District Nursing service could be improved. Individual files contained correspondence and other records relating to healthcare appointments. Some records included information about tissue viability and dietary monitoring. Several service users felt that the Chiropodist’s visits were not frequent enough. The Inspector has been informed that residents are made aware of Chiropodist’s fortnightly visits and that she will visit on request. Services are also available at the local Medical Centre. The service users to whom the Inspector spoke appeared adequately well groomed. One relative commented very positively about the laundry arrangements and the care taken by staff to ensure that clothes where regularly cleaned and returned to the right person. Records showed how one service user had been encouraged to follow a routine of personal hygiene in accordance with professional recommendations. Some service users said they would like more frequent baths. Medicines were securely stored in the home’s office. At the time of inspection, no controlled drugs were in use. A list of approved homely remedies was seen by the Inspector. One service user was found to be self-medicating. A risk assessment had been produced and the service user had been provided with lockable storage for the medication. A “Nomad” system was being used in the home for administering medicines. Medicines are dispensed by the Pharmacist into cartridges for individual service users, arranged by the time of day they are to be taken. The Registered Provider stated that this had been introduced recently. This was being used in conjunction with a previous system in which the medicines were placed in sealed pots for later administration and signed for at the time they were placed in the pot. This practice, known as “secondary dispensing” fails to provide a secure audit trail for medicines. It was discussed with the Registered Provider and was changed immediately so that, by the end of the inspection a more secure system was in place. Some recording errors were found on the medicines administration records. One dose had been signed for when not given and another had not been signed for. Key staff had received external training in the administration of medicines. Service users’ dignity and privacy is generally upheld. Preferred names are recorded in individual plans and were being used by staff during the inspection. Service users made generally favourable comments about the staff describing them as helpful and respectful. For those service users who do not have private telephones, a payphone available. This is in a hallway where Rosemont DS0000003798.V293908.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 10 conversations can be overheard. However, the Registered Provider stated that a cordless phone is available for making private calls if service users wish. In addition to individual rooms, the home has ample communal space in which service users may receive visitors in private if they wish. Rosemont DS0000003798.V293908.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 at least once during a 12 month period. JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for the following standard(s): 12 - 15 Quality in this outcome area is adequate. This judgement has been made using available evidence including a visit to this service. Service users are adequately encouraged and supported to maintain their independence. However, insufficient attention is given to developing, promoting and supporting recreational and social activities. EVIDENCE: The Inspector interviewed 9 service users. There were varied comments about lifestyle in the home. Those who enjoy a higher degree of independence felt that they were able to come and go as they pleased. Some go for walks locally and visit shops and local amenities. Others are taken out by visiting relatives or friends. Many have contacts in the local community. Less independent service users spend time in their rooms reading and watching television. A number of comments were received about the lack of activities provided by the home both within the home and in the form of group trips. The Registered Provider stated that some activities had been tried which had been poorly attended by service users. Some care plans identified the need for interests and activities to be maintained but it was not clear whether or how this was being done. A requirement made at the previous inspection concerning activities for service users has not been met. Rosemont DS0000003798.V293908.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 12 All service users stated that their visitors were made welcome and offered refreshment on arrival. This was confirmed by a visiting relatives who stated that they always receive a warm welcome. During the inspection, visitors and service users were seen chatting informally in the home’s conservatory. A lounge is available for private visits if required. One service user commented that the home was not at all regimented. This flexibility in day to day activity was evident during the inspection. Where service users were able to exercise choice and independence in, for example, matters of medication and mobility, this was being supported and encouraged. Service users are able to bring their own furniture to the home if they wish. For one service user this included all the furniture in the room. A menu which changes over a four week cycle was seen. This included a varied and balanced diet. Fresh fruit and vegetables were seen in the kitchen. The menu is displayed on a board in the home’s dining room. Individual preferences are recorded in the care plans and are understood by the home’s kitchen staff. One service user receives liquidised meals. It was stated that all the components of the meal were liquidised together. The reasons for this have been explained and written in the care plan. However, staff are reminded that normal good practice is to liquidise food in separate portions. Service users had mixed views about the food provided. Some felt the food was “very good” and “varied” whilst others felt the quality was “variable”. Service users are able to choose where they wish to eat. Some prefer their rooms whilst others eat together in the home’s dining room. Rosemont DS0000003798.V293908.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 inspected at least once during a 12 month period. JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for the following standard(s): Quality in this outcome area is adequate. This judgement has been made using available evidence including a visit to this service. Service users and their relatives can feel confident that any complaints will be treated seriously. Staff are not yet sufficiently well trained in protecting vulnerable adults from abuse. EVIDENCE: A complaints procedure has been produced for the home, a copy of which was posted in the hall. There was no record of any complaints since 2004 and the Commission has received no recent complaints about the home. The home has a policy and procedure in respect of the protection of vulnerable adults from abuse. Some suggested minor amendments to this policy were discussed with the Registered Provider. A requirement made at the last inspection to train staff in the protection of vulnerable adults from abuse had not been met. Training materials had been obtained but the programme of training had not been completed. This was the subject of an immediate requirement. Rosemont DS0000003798.V293908.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 14 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 at least once during a 12 month period. JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for the following standard(s): 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24 and 26 Quality in this outcome area is adequate. This judgement has been made using available evidence including a visit to this service. Service users are provided with a generally safe and comfortable environment. However, insufficient attention has been given to some long-standing maintenance issues. EVIDENCE: Rosemont is situated on the outskirts of the village of Newton Ferrers. Shops and other amenities are within walking distance. Externally the home has well maintained grounds with ramped access to the garden where seating is provided. The home has a good range of comfortably furnished communal space including a lounge/dining room, a separate lounge, and a conservatory with views of the estuary. Many of the bedrooms are very large, with one offering a lounge area as well as a bedroom. Two bedrooms provide en suite shower facilities. Rooms were found to be generally comfortable and personalised with service users’ own belongings. One service user and her family had chosen to furnish her own room completely and this was accommodated by the service. Rosemont DS0000003798.V293908.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 15 There are adequate bathing and toilet facilities on each floor to meet service users’ needs. Two of the 3 bathrooms are fitted with bath chairs to assist service users with poor mobility. A shower in the ground floor bathroom is now used as a storage area. Facilities such as booster seats and toilet frames were seen. One frame was found to be rusting and immediately replaced. The toilet on the first floor does not have a wash hand basin. Since the last inspection, waterless gel hand cleaner has been supplied to this toilet to minimise the risk of cross infection. Soap in bars was provided in communal bathrooms and toilets. During the inspection the home was found to be adequately clean and free from offensive odours. Radiators are covered for service users’ safety. The Registered Provider stated that all baths had been fitted with hot water regulating valves and that these were being fitted to hand basins on the basis of risk assessment. The exterior of the property showed signs of redecoration and evidence was seen of ongoing maintenance internally. A requirement was made at the last inspection to redecorate one bedroom. This had not been done. The sash window in one room was not working properly and the window was propped open. Records indicated that this issue had first been identified in a risk assessment in 2003. The home’s laundry is separated from the kitchen and has cleanable floors and washable walls. There were machines for washing and drying. Staff confirmed that the machines have hot wash cycles and that one machine has a sluicing facility. The premises have not yet been assessed by an Occupational Therapist or allied professional who could give advice on the suitability of existing or potential aids and adaptations for service users. Rosemont DS0000003798.V293908.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 16 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 at least once during a 12 month period. JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for the following standard(s): 27, 28, 29 and 30 Quality in this outcome area is adequate. This judgement has been made using available evidence including a visit to this service. Staff are employed in sufficient numbers to meet service users needs. Improvements are needed in training to enable staff to provide the best possible support for service users. EVIDENCE: Care and support is provided by a manager (known as the Matron) and staff team whose hours are varied. This group comprises experienced and more recently recruited staff. Separate staff are employed for waking night duty, kitchen and domestic duties. Most service users felt that their requests were dealt with promptly and that staff provided assistance when required. This suggests that sufficient staff are employed to meet the needs of those service users currently living at the home. One staff member commented that they would like more time to spend with individual service users. Six staff files were examined and were found to contain the references and checks required by regulation for the safety of service users. Criminal Records Bureau checks are obtained through Devon County Council for all newly appointed staff prior to their coming their duties. Induction / foundation training for new staff does not yet meet the recommended National Training Organisation specification. Discussion with staff and examination of records showed that individual training needs had been reviewed. Some training has been provided in accordance with the reviews though some staff await updates in, for example, first aid. Staff employed from the Philippines have been provided with basic literacy skills training. At the time of inspection the number of staff qualified to NVQ level 2 or above fell below the National Minimum Standard. It is recommended that all Rosemont DS0000003798.V293908.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 17 care staff should all have access to training directly relevant to service users’ needs. In particular this should include the prevention of falls and conditions associated with old age. Rosemont DS0000003798.V293908.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 18 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 at least once during a 12 month period. JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for the following standard(s): 31, 33, 35 and 38 Quality in this outcome area is adequate. This judgement has been made using available evidence including a visit to this service. The home is generally managed to an adequate standard. EVIDENCE: The Registered Provider holds overall managerial responsibility for the home. He is assisted by the Matron who is not registered with the Commission. The Matron is an experienced carer who holds a City and Guilds Advanced Management for Care Award. She is currently undertaking the Registered Managers Award and updating an assessors qualification. She has also undertaken a number of short courses relevant to the needs of service users. A quality assurance system and annual development plan for the home have yet to be fully developed and implemented. Service users and their relatives retain responsibility for their finances and no service users’ money is held by the home. Radiators have been covered to protect service users from burns. Risks assessments relating to protecting service users from scalds from uncontrolled Rosemont DS0000003798.V293908.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 19 hot water in wash hand basins have been undertaken for every service user since the last inspection. Radiators have been covered to protect service users from burns. The join in the first floor hallway carpet which was identified as a hazard at the last inspection had been repaired. A number of records were examined which confirmed that regular equipment safety checks are conducted. Records were seen regarding safety checks in the home. These included gas safety, maintenance of hoists and stair lift, disposal of clinical waste and an environmental health report whose recommendations has been followed. Risk assessments for environmental hazards were seen. Some staff health and safety training remains outstanding. Fire equipment checks had been completed and there was evidence of fire training for staff. This comprised of a video and questionnaire. Fire training from an external provider at least once per year remains a recommendation. Since the last inspection 2 service users had died and one had been admitted to the hospital accident and emergency department following an accident. These incidents had not been reported to the Commission as required by regulation. Rosemont DS0000003798.V293908.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 20 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 2 X X 2 HEALTH AND PERSONAL CARE Standard No Score 7 1 8 3 9 2 10 3 11 X DAILY LIFE AND SOCIAL ACTIVITIES Standard No Score 12 2 13 3 14 3 15 3 COMPLAINTS AND PROTECTION Standard No Score 16 1 17 x 18 2 2 3 3 2 3 2 X 2 STAFFING Standard No Score 27 3 28 2 29 3 30 2 MANAGEMENT AND ADMINISTRATION Standard No 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 Score 3 X 1 X 3 X X 2 Rosemont DS0000003798.V293908.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 21 Are there any outstanding requirements from the last inspection? Yes STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS This section sets out the actions, which must be taken so that the registered person/s meets the Care Standards Act 2000, Care Homes Regulations 2001 and the National Minimum Standards. The Registered Provider(s) must comply with the given timescales. No. 1 Standard OP3 Regulation 14 Requirement Timescale for action 31/07/06 2 OP7 15 3 4 OP9 13 16 OP12 Assessments must be made of the needs of all prospective service users and these assessments must be available for inspection. The Registered Provider must write to the service user confirming that the home can meet his/her needs 27/07/06 The Registered Provider must produce for every service user a written plan detailing the service user’s needs. This must be produced prior to or soon after the service user’s admission to the home and reviewed monthly with the service user or representative. These plans must be available for inspection Immediate requirement made Records concerning the 21/07/06 administration of medicines must be accurate and up to date The Registered Provider must 30/09/06 consult with service users regarding a programme of activities and provide facilities for activities in relation to recreation, fitness and training. DS0000003798.V293908.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Rosemont Page 22 5 OP18 30 6 7 8 OP19 OP24 OP38 23 23 13 9 OP38 37 Previous timescale 30/06/06 not met. Care staff must receive training in the protection of vulnerable adults. Previous timescale 31/05/06 not met. Immediate requirement made The sash window in room 1 must be repaired Bedroom 5 must be redecorated. Previous timescale 30/06/06 not met. All staff must receive regular training in first aid, manual handling, infection control and food hygiene. Previous timescale 30/04/06 not met. Accidents, injuries and deaths must be reported to the Commission in accordance with regulation. 20/08/06 20/01/07 30/09/06 30/09/06 21/07/06 RECOMMENDATIONS These recommendations relate to National Minimum Standards and are seen as good practice for the Registered Provider/s to consider carrying out. No. 1 2 3 4 5 Refer to Standard OP7 OP7 OP22 OP26 OP30 Good Practice Recommendations Service user’s plans should contain a photograph of the service user Copies of the care plans available to staff should be up to date The premises and facilities should be assessed by an Occupational Therapist or allied professional. Liquid soap in dispensers should be provided in communal bathrooms and toilets All care staff should all have access to training directly relevant to service users’ needs. In particular, this should include the prevention of falls and conditions associated with old age. The home should produce a quality assurance system and DS0000003798.V293908.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 23 6 Rosemont OP33 7 8 OP28 OP30 9 OP38 an annual development plan. A minimum of 50 of care staff should have a National Vocational Qualification or equivalent. The Registered Provider should consult with a training provider to ensure the induction training provided for newly appointed staff meets the National Training Organisation’s specifications. It is recommended that all staff receive fire safety training from an external training provider at least once a year. Rosemont DS0000003798.V293908.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 24 Commission for Social Care Inspection Ashburton Office Unit D1 Linhay Business Park Ashburton TQ13 7UP National Enquiry Line: 0845 015 0120 Email: enquiries@csci.gsi.gov.uk Web: www.csci.org.uk © This report is copyright Commission for Social Care Inspection (CSCI) and may only be used in its entirety. Extracts may not be used or reproduced without the express permission of CSCI Rosemont DS0000003798.V293908.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 25 - 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!