Inspection on 28/05/08 for Rossendale Hall

This inspection was carried out on 28th May 2008.

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

The inspector found there to be outstanding requirements from the previous inspection report. These are things the inspector asked to be changed, but found they had not done. The inspector also made 9 statutory requirements (actions the home must comply with) as a result of this inspection.

Other inspections for this house

Rossendale Hall 09/01/09

Rossendale Hall 30/05/07

Rossendale Hall 09/01/07

Rossendale Hall 08/08/06

Rossendale Hall 16/03/06

Rossendale Hall 29/06/05

Rossendale Hall 23/11/04

Rossendale Hall 12/08/04

Similar services:

Ruskin Lodge

Clover House

Dystlegh Grange

The Good Companions

Cuerden Grange Rest Home

Springfield Cottage

Parkside

Park Lodge

Extracts from inspection reports are licensed from CQC, this page was updated on 28/09/2008.

CARE HOME ADULTS 18-65 Rossendale Hall Hollin Lane Sutton Macclesfield Cheshire SK11 0HR Lead Inspector Julie Porter Unannounced Inspection 28 May 2008 13:00 Rossendale Hall DS0000006617.V366246.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 1 The Commission for Social Care Inspection aims to: • • • • Put the people who use social care first Improve services and stamp out bad practice Be an expert voice on social care Practise what we preach in our own organisation Reader Information Document Purpose Author Audience Further copies from Copyright Inspection Report CSCI General Public 0870 240 7535 (telephone order line) This report is copyright Commission for Social Care Inspection (CSCI) and may only be used in its entirety. Extracts may not be used or reproduced without the express permission of CSCI www.csci.org.uk Internet address Rossendale Hall DS0000006617.V366246.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 2 This is a report of an inspection to assess whether services are meeting the needs of people who use them. The legal basis for conducting inspections is the Care Standards Act 2000 and the relevant National Minimum Standards for this establishment are those for Care Homes for Adults 18-65. They can be found at www.dh.gov.uk or obtained from The Stationery Office (TSO) PO Box 29, St Crispins, Duke Street, Norwich, NR3 1GN. Tel: 0870 600 5522. Online ordering: www.tso.co.uk/bookshop This report is a public document. Extracts may not be used or reproduced without the prior permission of the Commission for Social Care Inspection. Rossendale Hall DS0000006617.V366246.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 3 SERVICE INFORMATION Name of service Rossendale Hall Address Hollin Lane Sutton Macclesfield Cheshire SK11 0HR 01260 252500/ 252216 01260 252571 cb@rossendaletrust.org 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) Rossendale Trust Christian Blythe Care Home 30 Category(ies) of Learning disability (28), Learning disability over registration, with number 65 years of age (2), Physical disability (10) of places Rossendale Hall DS0000006617.V366246.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 4 SERVICE INFORMATION Conditions of registration: 1 The home is registered to provide care for a maximum of 30 service users including: Up to 30 service users in the category of LD(learning disabilities); Up to 2 service users in the category of LD(E) learning disabilities, 65 years and over); Up to 10 service users in the category of PD (physical disabilities). 30th May 2007 Date of last inspection Brief Description of the Service: The Rossendale Trust was established in 1973 and provides both residential and day care for adults with learning disabilities. Rossendale Hall, registered to provide care for 30 people with learning disabilities, is a detached hall built in the 1930s, situated in its own grounds in a rural location on the outskirts of Macclesfield. The home has been adapted and extended over the years and currently consists of three self-contained units: the Hall, Riverside and Hillside. Accommodation is in single and shared bedrooms situated on the ground and first floors. The rooms are smaller than the sizes identified in the national minimum standards (Standard 25 of the National Minimum Standards for Care Homes for Younger Adults). However, as the home was registered and in use before 31 March 2002, it does not have to meet this standard. Local amenities, in the village of Sutton and at other Rossendale Trust services, are a short drive away. Information regarding the cost of living in the home is available from the manager as this depends on the level of support needed. Rossendale Hall DS0000006617.V366246.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 5 SUMMARY This is an overview of what the inspector found during the inspection. The overall quality rating for this service is 0 stars. This means that the people who use the service experience poor quality outcomes. This unannounced visit took place on 28 May 2008 and the findings were discussed with a representative of Rossendale Trust and the manager of the home on 6 June 2008. The visit lasted 8.5 hours in total and was carried out by one inspector. The visit was just one part of the inspection. Before then, the manager was asked to complete a questionnaire to provide up to date information about services offered by the home. CSCI questionnaires were made available for people who live at the home to find out their views about it. Other information received by CSCI since the service was last visited was also reviewed. During the visit various records and the premises were looked at. A short, focussed inspection was carried out at the home on 2nd April 2008. This was to check on what action had been taken to meet the requirements made at the last inspection in May 2007. Information was provided which led us to believe that improvements had been made. What the service does well: What has improved since the last inspection? People living in the home have more opportunity to access college courses that meet their expectations, so their chances to take part in activities in the community and to learn have been increased. Maintenance of the buildings continues so that people living there continue to do so safely. Rossendale Hall DS0000006617.V366246.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 6 What they could do better: Please contact the provider for advice of actions taken in response to this inspection. The report of this inspection is available from enquiries@csci.gsi.gov.uk or by contacting your local CSCI office. The summary of this inspection report can be made available in other formats on request. Rossendale Hall DS0000006617.V366246.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 7 DETAILS OF INSPECTOR FINDINGS CONTENTS Choice of Home (Standards 1–5) Individual Needs and Choices (Standards 6-10) Lifestyle (Standards 11-17) Personal and Healthcare Support (Standards 18-21) Concerns, Complaints and Protection (Standards 22-23) Environment (Standards 24-30) Staffing (Standards 31-36) Conduct and Management of the Home (Standards 37 – 43) Scoring of Outcomes Statutory Requirements Identified During the Inspection Rossendale Hall DS0000006617.V366246.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 8 Choice of Home The intended outcomes for Standards 1 – 5 are: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Prospective service users have the information they need to make an informed choice about where to live. Prospective users’ individual aspirations and needs are assessed. Prospective service users know that the home that they will choose will meet their needs and aspirations. Prospective service users have an opportunity to visit and to “test drive” the home. Each service user has an individual written contract or statement of terms and conditions with the home. The Commission consider Standard 2 the key standard to be inspected. JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for the following standard(s): 2 People who use services experience good care in this outcome area. We have made this judgement using available evidence, including a visit to the service. Assessment documents are available to collect information about people’s needs so that they can be assured that the home can meet those needs before they move in. EVIDENCE: There has been a continuing development of a Rossendale Trust document that includes information about the person’s personal details relating to family, likes and dislikes, and information about healthcare professionals involved in the person’s care. The assessment document also encourages staff who are completing it to look at the ability of the individual in relation to mobility and self care. Any referral made to the home would be made though the person’s social worker and the local authority would also complete information regarding the person’s needs. Nobody has moved to the home since the last inspection. Rossendale Hall DS0000006617.V366246.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 9 Individual Needs and Choices The intended outcomes for Standards 6 – 10 are: 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. Service users know their assessed and changing needs and personal goals are reflected in their individual Plan. Service users make decisions about their lives with assistance as needed. Service users are consulted on, and participate in, all aspects of life in the home. Service users are supported to take risks as part of an independent lifestyle. Service users know that information about them is handled appropriately, and that their confidences are kept. The Commission considers Standards 6, 7 and 9 the key standards to be inspected. JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for the following standard(s): 6, 7, 8 and 9 People who use services experience adequate care in this outcome area. We have made this judgement using available evidence, including a visit to the service. The organisation needs to aim for consistency in the quality and the format used to record each person’s needs so that the information is easily accessible for staff and accurate. EVIDENCE: Three care files were checked at this visit - one from each of the houses. We found that personal information about the person’s next of kin, social worker and the details of health professionals involved with their care was recorded consistently in all three files. Contracts regarding the facilities the home offered and what the person could expect from living there were seen on each file. A record is kept daily about the person’s activities and wellbeing. Rossendale Hall DS0000006617.V366246.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 10 On one file we found that the person needed support with all aspects of their care. There was some information on the file about eating guidelines but it was not dated. There was also information stating the person should have soft pureed foods. A care plan dated 18th May 2007 states “I like crunchy foods”. Staff said that this has been put in place at request of the person’s request and based on information from the GP the person had whilst living at their parent’s home. Information about this person’s dietary needs should be accurate and clearly presented. There also needs to be a risk assessment so that staff know what action they need to take in relation to the person’s diet. There was a health and safety risk assessment in the file but it was not dated. The review date for this assessment was recorded as August 2006 but no review had taken place. A risk assessment had been completed on 5th February 2007 in relation to the equipment needed to support this person. In June 2007 faults were recorded regarding the equipment. This was checked out with the staff on duty and it would appear that the faults have been rectified, although staff were unsure about this and the matter remains outstanding on file. Information about risks needs to be updated more frequently. A complete list of medicines was available. Evidence was available to show that doctors are involved with the person, as necessary. The second and third files showed that some aspects of the plan are not fully understood by the staff and, as a result, the information is incomplete and/or confusing. Some examples of this are in the section that asks for personal safety risks to be identified. This is left blank; the second part of the question asks, “are there any changes which need to be recorded?” - the answer is marked as “no”. Also, the section that looks at communication asks Response to instruction? This is left blank. The second part asks are there any changes? – the answer is marked as “no”. The document is set out in tick boxes and would be more useful if there was some written information to provide staff with better quality information about people’s individual needs. An example of good quality information was seen and discussed with the manager so that he could see what needed to be done to improve all the care documents. Risks were discussed with the staff in relation to one person and they spoke about road safety, over familiarity, behaviour, weight. None of these issues had been identified in the plan. The chosen activities, behaviour and lifestyle were discussed with the other person, who said that they had epilepsy and could do most things without staff support. They said they enjoyed college, could not make a cup of tea because they may burn themselves and from time to time did leave the home without telling anyone. None of these activities had been risk assessed to support the person in achieving greater independence. Rossendale Hall DS0000006617.V366246.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 11 Information had been recorded on the daily records that this person is “confined to barracks for the moment”. There is also a reward programme in operation for “good” behaviour. This matter was discussed with the manager who confirmed that neither of these sanctions had been put in place with psychiatry/psychology input. Three different records are in use at the home: the Rossendale plan, the health action plan and the ‘listen to me’ plan. On the whole, the information is the same in each of these and the Trust should decide to use just one of these, as reviewing three documents may lead to inconsistencies with information. An advocate from East Cheshire Advocacy is involved with the people living in the home in preparation for the move to the proposed newly built houses to be provided by a housing association that is working with Rossendale Trust. Rossendale Hall DS0000006617.V366246.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 12 Lifestyle The intended outcomes for Standards 11 - 17 are: 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. Service users have opportunities for personal development. Service users are able to take part in age, peer and culturally appropriate activities. Service users are part of the local community. Service users engage in appropriate leisure activities. Service users have appropriate personal, family and sexual relationships. Service users’ rights are respected and responsibilities recognised in their daily lives. Service users are offered a healthy diet and enjoy their meals and mealtimes. The Commission considers Standards 12, 13, 15, 16 and 17 the key standards to be inspected. JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for the following standard(s): 12, 13, 15, 16 and 17 People who use services experience good care in this outcome area. We have made this judgement using available evidence, including a visit to the service. People are encouraged to make decisions but further work needs to be done to ensure greater independence in preparation for the move into the new houses when these are ready for occupation. EVIDENCE: Two of the care plans we looked at identified that the people attended the new facility at Macclesfield College. One of them told us this was “great”. Two people we spoke with had just returned from work; both said that they enjoy what they do and like their colleagues. Rossendale Hall DS0000006617.V366246.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 13 People living in the home access the community with various levels of support in accordance with their individual needs. They are encouraged to maintain contact with their family and one person told us that her family visit very regularly. Some residents spoken with said they would like to do more at the weekends. A number of people we talked with were due to go on holiday soon and were looking forward to that. They appeared happy with the group that was going and the staff accompanying them. Some of the people living in Hillside Unit told us that they were involved with a group that arranged activities such as bowling evenings and meals out. They said they enjoyed this a lot and were looking forward to the next trip. The evening meal was enjoyed with the people living in The Hall; people were not encouraged to get involved with preparing the meal, as staff on duty had made this that morning. We observed that following the meal dishes were returned to the kitchen but people who live at the home did not become involved with the tidying and washing up. There would appear to be a number of lost opportunities for personal development and learning new skills in preparation for greater independence. Rossendale Hall DS0000006617.V366246.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 14 Personal and Healthcare Support The intended outcomes for Standards 18 - 21 are: 18. 19. 20. 21. Service users receive personal support in the way they prefer and require. Service users’ physical and emotional health needs are met. Service users retain, administer and control their own medication where appropriate, and are protected by the home’s policies and procedures for dealing with medicines. The ageing, illness and death of a service user are handled with respect and as the individual would wish. The Commission considers Standards 18, 19, and 20 the key standards to be inspected. JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for the following standard(s): 18, 19 and 20 People who use services experience poor care in this outcome area. We have made this judgement using available evidence, including a visit to the service. Staff must receive regular training to ensure they are providing care in accordance with best practice. Staff must ensure the dignity of the people living in the home at all times. EVIDENCE: During our visit, staff members were heard to make derogatory remarks about one of the people who lives in the home. They also used inappropriate language. The person needed help with personal hygiene and changing her clothing and was made to wait until the member of staff had gone to have a cigarette. This matter was discussed with the representative of Rossendale Trust and the manager during feedback on the findings of our visit. We have been assured that action is being taken to deal with this issue. Rossendale Hall DS0000006617.V366246.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 15 The training manager said that all senior staff responsible for medication administration have received up to date training. We spoke with one member of staff who is producing further information for staff in respect of the individual’s preferences to taking medicines - for example, on a spoon, in a pot, with juice, with milk or water. Information will also be available as cautionary notes; e.g., spits out or stores under the tongue. This was seen as useful for newer staff or staff unfamiliar with each person. Not all staff have received moving and handling training and some are now overdue for refresher training. All the people living in the home are registered with the local doctor, optician and dentist. Records of healthcare and visits by GPs, nurses and other healthcare professionals are kept for each person living in the home. Rossendale Hall DS0000006617.V366246.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 16 Concerns, Complaints and Protection The intended outcomes for Standards 22 – 23 are: 22. 23. Service users feel their views are listened to and acted on. Service users are protected from abuse, neglect and self-harm. The Commission considers Standards 22, and 23 the key standards to be inspected. JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for the following standard(s): 22 and 23 People who use services experience poor care in this outcome area. We have made this judgement using available evidence, including a visit to the service. By not following current Department of Health guidance and the home’s own procedures when allegations are made, the provider and manager cannot demonstrate that people living in the home are adequately protected from possible abuse. EVIDENCE: The organisation has a complaints process available to people living in the home and other interested parties. The manager reported that thirteen complaints had been received since the last inspection and all had been resolved within 28 days. The staff training records showed that five of the thirty staff at the home need to complete training on safeguarding adults from abuse. An allegation had been brought to the attention of the local authority’s adult protection team on 18 April 2008. The Department of Health guidance for the protection of vulnerable adults was not followed in this instance. The Trust’s policy regarding the protection of vulnerable adults was checked and it was clear that this policy had also not been followed. This matter was discussed with a representative of the Trust and the manager after our visit. We were subsequently told that action had been taken to address this matter appropriately. Rossendale Hall DS0000006617.V366246.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 17 Environment The intended outcomes for Standards 24 – 30 are: 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. Service users live in a homely, comfortable and safe environment. Service users’ bedrooms suit their needs and lifestyles. Service users’ bedrooms promote their independence. Service users’ toilets and bathrooms provide sufficient privacy and meet their individual needs. Shared spaces complement and supplement service users’ individual rooms. Service users have the specialist equipment they require to maximise their independence. The home is clean and hygienic. The Commission considers Standards 24, and 30 the key standards to be inspected. JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for the following standard(s): 24, 25 and 30 People who use services experience adequate care in this outcome area. We have made this judgement using available evidence, including a visit to the service. There continues to be improvements made to the houses so that the people live in safe, comfortable surroundings. EVIDENCE: A tour of the home was done that included all communal areas and some bedrooms. Everyone living in the Hall was present during the visit. Three people were at home in Riverside and most at some point in Hillside. The cabinets in the kitchen of Hillside are due to be repaired and a new worktop installed. The shower room door had been taken off to prepare for widening the opening so that people using wheelchairs could have easier access. Late on in our visit, staff were seen struggling with a wicker screen, as one of the people living in the home wanted a shower. The door was still off during the feedback visit on 6th June 2008, eight days later. This was Rossendale Hall DS0000006617.V366246.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 18 discussed with the representative of the Trust who reported having problems with a builder. It was agreed the door would be re-hung in the meantime. In Riverside none of the bathrooms have locks and staff said that they keep coming off. The toilet/shower room near to the front door needs some sort of blind or curtain to ensure people’s dignity. There are a number of twin rooms in the home; the people living in those rooms have shared them for a number of years. This arrangement should be reviewed at the next opportunity to check whether those people continue to be happy to share a room or would prefer to have one of their own. A number of the bedrooms in the home do not meet the space requirements set out in the National Minimum Standards for Care Homes for Younger Adults. However, the home was registered before these standards came into force and is therefore not required to meet that standard. Some areas of the home will become increasing difficult for people living there to have access to as their mobility decreases. All areas of the home were clean and fresh. Rossendale Hall DS0000006617.V366246.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 19 Staffing The intended outcomes for Standards 31 – 36 are: 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. Service users benefit from clarity of staff roles and responsibilities. Service users are supported by competent and qualified staff. Service users are supported by an effective staff team. Service users are supported and protected by the home’s recruitment policy and practices. Service users’ individual and joint needs are met by appropriately trained staff. Service users benefit from well supported and supervised staff. The Commission considers Standards 32, 34 and 35 the key standards to be inspected. JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for the following standard(s): 32, 34, 35 and 36 People who use services experience adequate care in this outcome area. We have made this judgement using available evidence, including a visit to the service. Staff training must be kept up to date to ensure that staff are working in line with best practice and people living in the home are kept safe. EVIDENCE: The training manager for the Trust provided evidence that the following achievements have been made in National Vocational Qualifications (NVQ): eleven staff have achieved level 2 (one has also got level 3 and two are working towards level 3) in care; four staff are working towards level 2; one staff member is working towards level 3 and one is working towards level 4. Three staff files were inspected and we found that all contained application forms and details of the Criminal Record Bureau disclosures obtained by the Trust. The home has a dedicated training budget and a training manager who divides her time between this and other services run by Rossendale Trust. Rossendale Hall DS0000006617.V366246.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 20 Information provided in respect of fire safety training showed that 12 of the 30 staff have not received fire instruction in the last 12 months. Twenty-two staff have not had current moving and handling training and a further seven will become due to have this training updated on 14th June 2008. This contradicts the information given to us on 2nd April 2008 during a short unannounced visit to the home when the manager stated that fire safety training and moving and handling training was up to date. Not all staff have done training on basic food hygiene; this matter was discussed with the training officer, as staff in the home are expected to prepare and serve food for the people who live there. An appraisal structure has been developed and most staff have had an annual appraisal, but staff do not receive formal support and supervision when they sit with their manager to discuss their work and identify any training and development needs. These meetings should take place at least six times a year. Rossendale Hall DS0000006617.V366246.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 21 Conduct and Management of the Home The intended outcomes for Standards 37 – 43 are: 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. Service users benefit from a well run home. Service users benefit from the ethos, leadership and management approach of the home. Service users are confident their views underpin all self-monitoring, review and development by the home. Service users’ rights and best interests are safeguarded by the home’s policies and procedures. Service users’ rights and best interests are safeguarded by the home’s record keeping policies and procedures. The health, safety and welfare of service users are promoted and protected. Service users benefit from competent and accountable management of the service. The Commission considers Standards 37, 39, and 42 the key standards to be inspected. JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for the following standard(s): 37, 39 and 42 People who use services experience adequate care in this outcome area. We have made this judgement using available evidence, including a visit to the service. Staff have not received all mandatory training and by not implementing the home’s own policies and procedures, the people living in the home are not adequately safeguarded. EVIDENCE: The registered manager has the relevant qualifications for the post and is registered with the Commission for Social Care Inspection. We found that the home’s own policies for Protecting Vulnerable Adults were not implemented in respect of a recent issue. Rossendale Hall DS0000006617.V366246.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 22 We were informed that there are arrangements for Trustees and other managers to visit the home unannounced to check on how it is running, as required by the Care Homes Regulations. Staff have not undertaken all their mandatory training. A requirement was made at the last inspection for staff to receive fire safety training and moving and handling training; this has not been met. Rossendale Hall DS0000006617.V366246.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 Adults 18-65 have been met and uses the following scale. The scale ranges from: 4 Standard Exceeded 2 Standard Almost Met (Commendable) (Minor Shortfalls) 3 Standard Met 1 Standard Not Met (No Shortfalls) (Major Shortfalls) “X” in the standard met box denotes standard not assessed on this occasion “N/A” in the standard met box denotes standard not applicable CHOICE OF HOME Standard No Score 1 X 2 3 3 X 4 X 5 X INDIVIDUAL NEEDS AND CHOICES Standard No 6 7 8 9 10 Score CONCERNS AND COMPLAINTS Standard No Score 22 3 23 2 ENVIRONMENT Standard No Score 24 3 25 2 26 X 27 X 28 X 29 X 30 3 STAFFING Standard No Score 31 X 32 2 33 X 34 3 35 2 36 2 CONDUCT AND MANAGEMENT OF THE HOME Standard No 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 Score 2 2 2 2 X LIFESTYLES Standard No Score 11 X 12 3 13 3 14 X 15 3 16 2 17 3 PERSONAL AND HEALTHCARE SUPPORT Standard No 18 19 20 21 Score 2 3 3 X 2 X 3 X X 2 X Rossendale Hall DS0000006617.V366246.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 24 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 YA6 Regulation 14(2) Requirement Timescale for action 31/07/08 2 YA7 12(3) 3 YA9 13(4)(b) 4 YA18 12(4)(a) Assessments must accurately reflect the changes in people’s circumstances; for example, changes in dietary needs. This is so they receive appropriate care to meet their current needs. Sanctions must not be imposed 06/06/08 on people living in the home unless this is part of their plan and is with the agreement of the person and health professionals. This is to make sure that people’s rights are respected. Risk associated with activities 04/07/08 must be assessed and risk assessments used as a tool to enable people in achieving their goals. Risk assessments must be updated as required, when changes occur or new information becomes available. This is to make sure that people who live in the home can do things safely without unreasonable restrictions being placed upon them. The manager must ensure that 06/06/08 the staff conduct themselves in a manner that respects the privacy and dignity of the people living in DS0000006617.V366246.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Rossendale Hall Page 25 the home. 5 YA18 13(5) Staff must receive training in moving and handling so that they move and transfer people safely. Previous timescale of 31/08/07 not met. Staff must receive training to protect vulnerable adults so that people in the home stay safe. Staff must receive fire safety training so that they know what to do in the event of an emergency so they can protect themselves and those living in the home. Previous timescale of 31/08/07 not met. Staff must receive training in food hygiene so that they prepare and serve food safely. Staff must be appropriately supervised so that they get the support needed to do their work. 31/08/08 6 7 YA23 YA32 13(6) 23(4)(d) 31/08/08 31/08/08 8 9 YA32 YA36 18(1)(c) 18(2) 31/08/08 31/08/08 Rossendale Hall DS0000006617.V366246.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 26 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 Refer to Standard YA6 Good Practice Recommendations The Trust needs to decide on the most appropriate document on which to record people’s needs so that staff do not have to duplicate and there is no confusion as to which is the right information to follow to provide appropriate care for the people who live in the home. The manager should review the arrangements of keeping food locked away and the impact this has on the people living in the home. Action should be taken to consult with the people who live in the home and to encourage them to take part in the day-to-day routines in the home. Risk assessments should continue to be developed so they include all aspects of the residents’ daily living. Locks suitable to the needs of the residents should be fitted to bedrooms, so that their possessions can be kept securely and residents are afforded privacy. The manager should review the arrangements for providing shared bedrooms at the next opportunity so people have the chance to choose whether or not they want to share a bedroom. A minimum of 50 of staff should have achieved NVQ level 2 in care so people are receiving support from a skilled and qualified group of staff. The manager should formally supervise each member of staff at least six times per year. 2 3 4 5 6 YA7 YA8 YA9 YA16 YA25 7 8 YA32 YA36 Rossendale Hall DS0000006617.V366246.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 27 Commission for Social Care Inspection North West Region Unit 1, Level 3 Tustin Court Port Way Preston PR2 2YQ National Enquiry Line: Telephone: 0845 015 0120 or 0191 233 3323 Textphone: 0845 015 2255 or 0191 233 3588 Email: enquiries@csci.gsi.gov.uk Web: www.csci.org.uk © This report is copyright Commission for Social Care Inspection (CSCI) and may only be used in its entirety. Extracts may not be used or reproduced without the express permission of CSCI Rossendale Hall DS0000006617.V366246.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 28 - Please note that this information is included on www.bestcarehome.co.uk under license from the regulator. Re-publishing this information is in breach of the terms of use of that website. Discrete codes and changes have been inserted throughout the textual data shown on the site that will provide incontrovertable proof of copying in the event this information is re-published on other websites. The policy of www.bestcarehome.co.uk is to use all legal avenues to pursue such offenders, including recovery of costs. You have been warned!