Inspection on 17/11/05 for Rosier Home

This inspection was carried out on 17th November 2005.

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

Rosier Home 19/04/07

Rosier Home 02/05/06

Rosier Home 20/04/05

Rosier Home 02/11/04

Rosier Home 09/06/04

Similar services:

Claremont House

Oak Ridge

Coopers Mill Ltd

Sun Court Nursing Home

Ashville House

Bramley Avenue (73)

Paradise Lodge

Grangewood

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

CARE HOMES FOR OLDER PEOPLE Rosier Home 22-24 Harold Road Clacton On Sea Essex CO15 6AJ Lead Inspector Marion Angold Final Unannounced Inspection 17th November 09:30 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 Rosier Home DS0000017922.V266897.R01.S.doc Version 5.0 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. Rosier Home DS0000017922.V266897.R01.S.doc Version 5.0 Page 3 SERVICE INFORMATION Name of service Rosier Home Address 22-24 Harold Road Clacton On Sea Essex CO15 6AJ 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) 01255 427604 01255 223984 Mr Darren John Marles Miss Sonya Wase Miss Sonya Wase Care Home 16 Category(ies) of Dementia - over 65 years of age (6), Old age, registration, with number not falling within any other category (16) of places Rosier Home DS0000017922.V266897.R01.S.doc Version 5.0 Page 4 SERVICE INFORMATION Conditions of registration: 1. 2. 3. Persons of either sex, aged 65 years and over, who require care by reason of old age only (not to exceed 16 persons) The home may only accommodate six people with dementia whose names were provided to the Commission in September 2002 The total number of service users accommodated in the home must not exceed 16 persons 20th April 2005 Date of last inspection Brief Description of the Service: Rosier Home is an established care home, close to Clacton on Sea’s town centre and the seafront. Accommodation is offered on two floors, with the top floor accessed by stairs or a passenger lift. The home was originally registered under the Care Standards Act 2000 for sixteen older people. The registration was subsequently varied in acknowledgement that the home was caring for six older people with dementia. However, this variation is for specific service users and does not permit the home to accept any new service users with dementia. Rosier Home DS0000017922.V266897.R01.S.doc Version 5.0 Page 5 SUMMARY This is an overview of what the inspector found during the inspection. This unannounced inspection took place over three shifts, between 10.35 a.m. and 8.45 p.m. Mr Darren Marles, one of the Registered Providers, was on duty throughout the day and a number of staff and service users also assisted with the inspection. The home was operating with two vacancies, so there were fourteen people in residence at the time of inspection. This inspection focussed on previous shortfalls, as well as core National Minimum Standards not covered at the last inspection. Reference is made in this report to a complaint received in the interim from the relative of a service user. This complaint related principally to arrangements in a shared room at the time of a service user’s death, staff knowledge about the medication they were administering and the manner in which a particular member of staff had spoken to service users. The complaint was investigated under protection of vulnerable adult procedures and is covered briefly under the relevant National Minimum Standard, in the main body of this report. It should be noted that, although, in the main, the complaint was upheld, management have taken appropriate action to address the issues it raised In all, eighteen Standards were inspected on this occasion, ten of which were met. The remainder presented minor shortfalls. What the service does well: Rosier Home continued to provide a welcoming atmosphere and to involve relatives/representatives through periodic meetings. Suitable arrangements were in place for administering residents’ medication. Residents were being supported with occasional outings and to deal with matters of importance to them outside the home. Residents commented favourably about their meals, which were nutritious, varied and well presented. It was evident that the Providers were open and responsive to menu suggestions from residents. Only a partial tour of premises was undertaken during this inspection, but the areas encountered were in a good state of repair and decoration. All areas of the home were clean and fresh. One service user commented on the cleanliness of everything. Rosier Home DS0000017922.V266897.R01.S.doc Version 5.0 Page 6 The range of communal areas gave residents the opportunity to vary their location. One resident said they valued being able to sit quietly, away from the television. Both Providers continued to have considerable hands-on involvement in the home and it was evident from observation and comments that service users appreciated this. What has improved since the last inspection? What they could do better: Residents’ needs were assessed before coming to the home, but they did not always have a plan as to how the home would meet those needs. Care plans varied in the quality of information they provided and a number needed further development. Residents would benefit from knowing the day’s menu in advance and it should be made available to them in suitable formats. Additional radiator covers and pre-set valves to provide water close to 43oF are needed for the convenience and safety of service users. Prospective employees should be asked to supply full employment histories as part of the recruitment process. New Criminal Record Bureau disclosures must be obtained for staff returning to work at Rosier after a gap in their employment. Rosier Home DS0000017922.V266897.R01.S.doc Version 5.0 Page 7 As the needs and numbers of residents change management should recalculate staffing ratios, using a recognised tool. Management need to reflect and report on the various processes they use to monitor the quality of care provided at Rosier Home and link their conclusions to the business plan, so that the latter covers all aspects of care and provision and reflects the home’s aims and objectives. Management also needed to demonstrate that they had consulted residents about the presence and activity of staff members’ children in the home. 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. Rosier Home DS0000017922.V266897.R01.S.doc Version 5.0 Page 8 DETAILS OF INSPECTOR FINDINGS CONTENTS Choice of Home (Standards 1–6) Health and Personal Care (Standards 7-11) Daily Life and Social Activities (Standards 12-15) Complaints and Protection (Standards 16-18) Environment (Standards 19-26) Staffing (Standards 27-30) Management and Administration (Standards 31-38) Scoring of Outcomes Statutory Requirements Identified During the Inspection Rosier Home DS0000017922.V266897.R01.S.doc Version 5.0 Page 9 Choice of Home The intended outcomes for Standards 1 – 6 are: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Prospective service users have the information they need to make an informed choice about where to live. Each service user has a written contract/ statement of terms and conditions with the home. No service user moves into the home without having had his/her needs assessed and been assured that these will be met. Service users and their representatives know that the home they enter will meet their needs. Prospective service users and their relatives and friends have an opportunity to visit and assess the quality, facilities and suitability of the home. Service users assessed and referred solely for intermediate care are helped to maximise their independence and return home. The Commission considers Standards 3 and 6 the key standards to be inspected at least once during a 12 month period. JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for the following standard(s): 3 Service users’ needs were assessed before coming to the home but they did not always have a plan as to how the home would meet those needs. EVIDENCE: Records sampled continued to evidence some inconsistency. Detailed needs assessments were in place for service users who had been admitted recently to the home. However, two service users’ records sampled did not have initial care plans generated from these assessments. A number of the existing service users had developed dementia since their admission to the home and remained in residence as a condition of the home’s registration. Appropriate adjustment to the details of the registration certificate still need to be made to reflect changes in the home’s population of service users with dementia. Following a recommendation at the last inspection, consultation had taken place with the appropriate social work team about the complex needs of one of the service users. Rosier Home DS0000017922.V266897.R01.S.doc Version 5.0 Page 10 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, 9 and 10 Care plans varied in quality, some meeting their purpose, others remaining incomplete. Arrangements had been made to ensure service users received their medication appropriately. EVIDENCE: Although Mr Marles or Mrs Wase completed the initial care plans, individual key workers were responsible for their evaluation and ongoing development. It was evident from the four care plans sampled that key workers were not equally equipped for this task. One service user’s records lacked a risk assessment and updated care plan linked to recent changes in their circumstances. However, staff on duty were familiar with the person’s requirements and working to the same guidelines. Therefore, responsibility for coordinating and overseeing care plans had been delegated to a senior carer, whose intention it was to meet with staff individually to work through the new methodology and ensure greater consistency in the execution of care plans. A relatively new service user knew they had a key worker, but was not aware that a plan of care had been developed specifically for them. Rosier Home DS0000017922.V266897.R01.S.doc Version 5.0 Page 11 A recent complaint made to the Commission alleged that a member of staff had not been able to say or find out what the medication they were giving to the complainant’s relative was for. This aspect of the complaint was upheld, although the concern was more about the member of staff’s failure to try and find the information than their lack of immediate knowledge. The Community Pharmacist, visiting the home in the wake of this complaint, confirmed that staff would not be expected to know about all the medication, but have appropriate guidance and information they could access. During the inspection it was found that methodology was included in each person’s care plan for listing the reasons for the medication and possible side effects, although this information had not been completed for every item of medication. Procedures for administering medication were appropriate, as sampled at lunchtime and the person responsible demonstrated competence in related discussion. They reported that staff, who administered medication, did so by choice and only after they had received appropriate training and mentoring. A detailed, user-friendly policy and other recommended literature were available for reference. An appropriate policy on upholding service users’ privacy and dignity was also in place and included procedures for staff to follow. One aspect of the complaint concerned staff bringing children to work and how this might affect the residents. One relatively new service user said they liked having the children around and two others, who spoke on this matter, indicated that they did not have any objections to their presence. However, Mr Marles was advised that he needed to be able to demonstrate that service users had been consulted about this aspect of their home life and that appropriate action had been taken to address any issues. Rosier Home DS0000017922.V266897.R01.S.doc Version 5.0 Page 12 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, 13, 14 and 15 Service users’ needs and preferences were increasingly taken into account in the organisation of daily schedules and activities. The home welcomed and supported visitors. Service users were helped to exercise control over their lives. Mealtimes were a positive experience for service users. EVIDENCE: It was evident from discussion and records that the home was providing intermittent activities for service users, based on their particular interests. For example, a mini-bus had been hired for outings and one person was taken out every week to continue an activity they had enjoyed before coming to the home. The home played a variety of music to suit the different tastes of service users. One senior member of staff, with experience of coordinating activities, was putting together themed activity boxes, to provide stimulation and discussion, particularly for those service users with dementia. The value of further staff training in the area of dementia care, and use of personal profiles for developing person-centred activities, was highlighted during separate discussions with this member of staff and the Provider. Rosier Home DS0000017922.V266897.R01.S.doc Version 5.0 Page 13 Written and verbal evidence supported the existence of flexible routines, with service users getting up, eating breakfast and going to bed at times to suit them. Service users indicated in various ways that they were content with day-to-day arrangements. The home maintained a positive approach to visitors, as evident from observation and discussion. One person’s relative came every afternoon and stayed until the service user went to bed. Another service user was being helped by their key worker to make contact with a relative. Service users also received help, as appropriate, to engage with advocates or legal representatives. An example of this took place, as arranged, on the day of inspection. The home continued to employ a cook to prepare lunch and tea. A full roast lunch was being prepared when the inspector arrived. It was well presented and items individually liquidised, where this was necessary, and as instructed in one of the care plans sampled. Appropriate arrangements had been made since the last inspection to monitor the interval between the last meal of the day and breakfast for service users who went to bed before supper. It was evident from observation, records, and discussion with one of the night staff that service users were offered something to eat before they went to bed and in the night, if they woke. Service users’ comments about meals were positive. One person said they did not know in advance what would be served for lunch. Therefore, it was suggested to Mr Marles that a menu be displayed in appropriate format. Although service users were not offered a choice for the main meal, some choice was available for breakfast, tea and supper and the cook was aware of people’s dislikes and preferences. It was evident that the Providers were open and responsive to suggestions from service users when they went shopping for provisions. Rosier Home DS0000017922.V266897.R01.S.doc Version 5.0 Page 14 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): 18 The home was taking appropriate steps to protect service users from abuse. EVIDENCE: Management had reviewed the home’s adult protection policy in September 2005. This contained clear and appropriate directions to staff. One aspect of the complaint received by the Commission involved the attitude of one member of the night staff, reflected in how they spoke to service users. The allegation was upheld and the home had taken appropriate steps to address and monitor the matter. During the inspection one service user spoke about the brusqueness of particular members of the night team, which they felt contrasted with the friendly approach of staff on the day shift. They stressed that this was a matter of attitude and that the staff in question were not unkind. They also stated that they had noticed some improvement since bringing the matter to the attention of one of the Providers. Mr Marles was advised to ensure that the staff in question continued to receive appropriate levels of training, monitoring and supervision to ensure the highest possible standards of care practice at all times. It was also recommended that the home access protection of vulnerable adults training for all remaining staff. Rosier Home DS0000017922.V266897.R01.S.doc Version 5.0 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 at least once during a 12 month period. JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for the following standard(s): 20 and 25 The home continued to provide a suitable, clean and comfortable environment, whilst still needing to finalise action to eliminate identified risks. EVIDENCE: Only a partial tour of premises was undertaken during this inspection, but the areas encountered were in a good state of repair and decoration. Mr Marles reported that arrangements were in hand to replace the carpet in the upstairs corridor/hallway, which had been splashed with paint during recent redecoration. All areas of the home were clean and fresh. One service user commented on the cleanliness of everything. An aspect of the complaint made to the Commission related to the arrangements for a person sharing a room with someone who was ill and subsequently died. This matter was not fully resolved, but it was noted during this inspection that in a similar situation, arising after the complaint, the home had made arrangements for the occupant who was well to transfer to a vacant, Rosier Home DS0000017922.V266897.R01.S.doc Version 5.0 Page 16 single room. One member of staff said that screening was used routinely at night in shared rooms. The domestic had been assigned to ensure that water at disused outlets was allowed to run every week. Mr Marles said he would arrange for this person to monitor the temperature of water from hot taps, used by service users. He was advised to complete risk assessments for individual service users, where fail-safe devices had not been fitted to their hot water supply. Mr Marles indicated that they were treating these valves as a priority and were in the process of obtaining a second quote for the work. Rosier Home DS0000017922.V266897.R01.S.doc Version 5.0 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 at least once during a 12 month period. JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for the following standard(s): 27, 28, 29 and 30 Staffing levels had improved and were adequate for the home’s reduced population of service users. Aspects of the home’s recruitment procedures and training programme needed tightening to provide maximum protection for service users. EVIDENCE: Increased staffing arrangements for the morning appeared to be working well. The three staff on duty were supported by one of the providers/manager, a cook and domestic. For the remainder of the day, the home employed two staff, the night shift coming on duty at 6 pm. Mr Marles was advised that they must keep these ratios under review, particularly as remaining vacancies are filled and the home reaches full capacity. Mr Marles reported that more than 50 of staff had achieved or were training for National Vocational Qualification in care, Level 2. A sample of four staff files evidenced that staff continued to attend periodic training, although two staff, who had been with the home for nearly a year, had still to complete all their mandatory training. Four staff files were inspected. Most of the recruitment documentation, required by regulation, was in place, although one application form had not been fully completed and at least two members of staff had CRB disclosures relating to previous periods of employment at Rosier Home. Mr Marles was Rosier Home DS0000017922.V266897.R01.S.doc Version 5.0 Page 18 advised that new CRB disclosures must be obtained for staff who had returned to work at Rosier Home after a break, or working elsewhere. For the same purpose of protecting service users, advice was repeated about ensuring that, by adjustment to the job application form, staff were required to give a full employment history, in which any gaps could be explored at interview. Rosier Home DS0000017922.V266897.R01.S.doc Version 5.0 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 at least once during a 12 month period. JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for the following standard(s): 31 and 33 Service users benefited from the high profile of the Providers/Manager, but the latter needed to provide more formal evidence of how they were ensuring that the home was run in the best interests of its service users. EVIDENCE: The Registered Providers/Manager continued to have considerable hands-on involvement in the home and it was evident from observation and comments that service users appreciated this. Management had taken steps to address in full, or in part, the requirements identified at the last inspection. Mr Marles acknowledged that some work remained to be completed. He explained why they had needed to change their training provider for the National Vocation Qualification in management and care, Level 4, and outlined existing arrangements for undertaking the course. Rosier Home DS0000017922.V266897.R01.S.doc Version 5.0 Page 20 Although management had established various means of reviewing service provision, such as service users/relatives’ meetings and spot checks of the night shift, they had not developed these into a cohesive system for quality assurance. The home’s business plan consisted of a list of required maintenance and an account of expenditures. The Inspector proposed that management should identify, cost and prioritise needs against their available budget and that the plan should be linked to outcomes of service user surveys and other quality monitoring procedures. Staff meetings provided a forum for staff to contribute to the development of the home and discussion took place with Mr Marles about increasing staff attendance. A schedule of staff supervision was displayed in the office. One member of staff’s supervision records, though brief, evidenced regular one-to-one meetings. Rosier Home DS0000017922.V266897.R01.S.doc Version 5.0 Page 21 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 X HEALTH AND PERSONAL CARE Standard No Score 7 2 8 X 9 3 10 3 11 X DAILY LIFE AND SOCIAL ACTIVITIES Standard No Score 12 3 13 3 14 3 15 3 COMPLAINTS AND PROTECTION Standard No Score 16 X 17 X 18 2 X 3 X X X X 2 X STAFFING Standard No Score 27 3 28 3 29 2 30 2 MANAGEMENT AND ADMINISTRATION Standard No 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 Score 3 X 2 2 X X X X Rosier Home DS0000017922.V266897.R01.S.doc Version 5.0 Page 22 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 OP3OP7 Regulation 15, 12 Timescale for action The Registered Persons must 31/01/06 ensure that all service users have a detailed plan as to how the home is meeting their needs. THIS IS A REPEAT REQUIREMENT THAT HAS EXCEEDED AGREED TIMESCALES FOR ACTION OVER SUCCESSIVE INSPECTIONS. The Registered Persons must 31/12/05 ensure that they carry out all the required recruitment procedures for staff returning to work with them after a break in employment. The Registered Persons must 31/01/06 ensure that once risks to the health and safety of service users have been identified early action is taken to eliminate them. They must also ensure that the home’s water supply and fittings conform to regulations. THIS IS A REPEAT REQUIREMENT THAT HAS EXCEEDED AGREED TIMESCALES FOR ACTION OVER SUCCESSIVE INSPECTIONS. Requirement 2 OP29 19,Sch 2 & 17,Sch 4 3 OP25 13, 16 Rosier Home DS0000017922.V266897.R01.S.doc Version 5.0 Page 23 4 OP30OP38 13, 18 5 OP33 24 The Registered Persons must 28/02/06 ensure that all staff complete mandatory health and safety training. The Registered Persons must 31/01/06 continue to develop their methods for reviewing and improving the quality of care in the home. This must lead to a report that is supplied to the Commission and made available to service users. THIS IS A REPEAT REQUIREMENT THAT HAS EXCEEDED AGREED TIMESCALES FOR ACTION OVER SUCCESSIVE INSPECTIONS. 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 6 Refer to Standard OP7 OP15 OP18 OP27 OP29 OP31 Good Practice Recommendations Care plans should have clearly defined goals and actions based on each of the service users’ assessed needs. The Registered Persons should ensure that a daily menu is displayed or, in some way, made available to all service users. It is recommended that the home arrange protection of vulnerable adults training for all remaining staff. The Registered Persons should continue to review staffing levels as existing vacancies are filled. The Registered Persons should obtain full employment histories for potential staff, so that any gaps can be explored. The Registered Persons should ensure that they achieve the National Vocational Qualification, Level 4, in management and care and attend periodic training to update their knowledge and competencies for managing a care home for the elderly. DS0000017922.V266897.R01.S.doc Version 5.0 Page 24 Rosier Home 7 OP10OP33 OP34 The Registered Persons should develop their business plan to cover all aspects of provision and ensure they are achieving the aims and objectives of the home. They should ensure that all service users have been consulted about the presence and activity of staff members’ children in the home. Rosier Home DS0000017922.V266897.R01.S.doc Version 5.0 Page 25 Commission for Social Care Inspection Colchester Local Office 1st Floor, Fairfax House Causton Road Colchester Essex CO1 1RJ 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 Rosier Home DS0000017922.V266897.R01.S.doc Version 5.0 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!