Inspection on 04/07/07 for Rowena House

This inspection was carried out on 4th July 2007.

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

The inspector made no statutory requirements on the home as a result of this inspection and there were no outstanding actions from the previous inspection report.

Other inspections for this house

Rowena House 02/07/08

Rowena House 11/07/06

Rowena House 10/10/05

Rowena House 26/04/05

Rowena House 10/11/04

Rowena House 20/07/04

Similar services:

Snydale Care Home

Abbey The

Hawkhills

Larchfield Manor

Beeches The - North Yorkshire County Council

The Grove Waltham

Carentan House

Ravensworth Lodge

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

CARE HOMES FOR OLDER PEOPLE Rowena House Old Road Conisbrough Doncaster South Yorkshire DN12 3LX Lead Inspector Ivan Barker Key Unannounced Inspection 4th July 2007 10:30 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 DS0000032204.V344823.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. DS0000032204.V344823.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 3 SERVICE INFORMATION Name of service Rowena House Address Old Road Conisbrough Doncaster South Yorkshire DN12 3LX 01709 862331 01709 858383 NONE NONE Doncaster Metropolitan Borough Council 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) Yvonne Margaret Lawson Care Home 36 Category(ies) of Dementia - over 65 years of age (12), Old age, registration, with number not falling within any other category (24) of places DS0000032204.V344823.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 4 SERVICE INFORMATION Conditions of registration: 1. Day care places in the DE(E) unit must be limited to 1 when the unit is full with 12 residential service users. There is insufficient communal space to meet the required communal space standard when the number of service users goes above this limit of 13 persons. An additional member of staff should be provided when the number rises above 12. 11th July 2006 Date of last inspection Brief Description of the Service: Rowena House is a purpose built care home situated on Old Road Conisbrough and owned by Doncaster Metropolitan Borough Council. It is on the main bus route and close to local shops and a public house. The town centre of Conisbrough is near by. Rowena House is set in pleasant gardens and includes an internal courtyard equipped with garden furniture, where the residents and their guests are able to sit outside. There is parking for several vehicles to the front of the home. The home is divided into two units. One unit is for the care of service users with dementia. The other unit is for the care of service users with personal needs. Access to the first floor is via a lift and stairway. The home’s current fees range from £330.00 to £490.00 per week and information about fees is available to service users and their family in the ‘Welcome to Rowena House’ information pack, which includes the Service user Guide. DS0000032204.V344823.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 5 SUMMARY This is an overview of what the inspector found during the inspection. Only a limited number of the National Minimum Standards were examined at this inspection (with emphasis on the ‘key standards’), and the previous requirements. The person present at the inspection was: Yvonne Lawson, registered manager. Within this site visit, which occurred over a six hour period, the inspector toured the building, examined requirements relating to the previous inspection, case tracked 3 service users (Case tracked means looking at the care and service provided to specific service users living at the home; checking records relating to their health and welfare, care plans and other records; by talking to the service users themselves; viewing their personal accommodation as well as communal living areas), and spoke with other service users, and relatives and also 3 staff and examined assessments, care plans, risk assessments, menus, complaint files, staff files and quality monitoring documents. The history of the service was examined prior to the site visit. This included the Annual Quality Assurance Assessment document (AQAA), the telephone contacts, letters, notifications etc. What the service does well: Accurate comprehensive assessments were in place. This ensured that the service have sufficient information to be aware of the service user’s needs prior to admission. Accurate care plans and medication records will contribute to the delivery of care. Service users were satisfied with the care. Their opinions were; ‘The care is good / very good’. ‘I’m looked after very well’. Activities were organised within the service, which would provide stimulation to service users and enhance their quality of life. On discussing the activities with the service users, their opinions were that; ‘My nails are beautiful, they are so kind’. ‘We do things now and again’. ‘We will be having bingo later, not sure when’. Service users were given the opportunity to exercise their right of choice regarding the provision of meals. DS0000032204.V344823.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 6 Positive comments were received from the service users regarding the food provision. ‘The food is good.’ (3 service users stated) ‘I don’t eat a lot, but have what I want’. ‘They ask us what we want for dinner’. The manager was able to evidence that the staff had received safeguarding adults training. Therefore staff would be aware of their responsibility regarding the protection of vulnerable adults. The environment, monitored at the site visit, had been maintained to a good standard and provided a safe, well-maintained environment for services users. The staff recruitment process should provide protection for the service users. What has improved since the last inspection? What they could do better: Please contact the provider for advice of actions taken in response to this inspection. The report of this inspection is available from enquiries@csci.gsi.gov.uk or by contacting your local CSCI office. The summary of this inspection report can be made available in other formats on request. DS0000032204.V344823.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 7 DETAILS OF INSPECTOR FINDINGS CONTENTS Choice of Home (Standards 1–6) Health and Personal Care (Standards 7-11) Daily Life and Social Activities (Standards 12-15) Complaints and Protection (Standards 16-18) Environment (Standards 19-26) Staffing (Standards 27-30) Management and Administration (Standards 31-38) Scoring of Outcomes Statutory Requirements Identified During the Inspection DS0000032204.V344823.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 8 Choice of Home The intended outcomes for Standards 1 – 6 are: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Prospective service users have the information they need to make an informed choice about where to live. Each service user has a written contract/ statement of terms and conditions with the home. No service user moves into the home without having had his/her needs assessed and been assured that these will be met. Service users and their representatives know that the home they enter will meet their needs. Prospective service users and their relatives and friends have an opportunity to visit and assess the quality, facilities and suitability of the home. Service users assessed and referred solely for intermediate care are helped to maximise their independence and return home. The Commission considers Standards 3 and 6 the key standards to be inspected. JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for the following standard(s): Standards 3 and 6. People who use the service experience good quality outcomes in this area. We have made this judgement using a range of evidence, including a visit to this service. Accurate comprehensive assessments were in place from the care management team and from the managers of the service. This ensured that the service have sufficient information to be aware of the service user’s needs prior to admission. EVIDENCE: On examination of the care management assessments within three care plans, it was established that all three had care management assessments plus the service users with dementia had a clinical assessment. DS0000032204.V344823.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 9 The manager, deputy manager or assistant manager had undertaken assessments of each service user prior to their admission. These assessments detailed the service user’s needs that would assist in providing sufficient information for care plans to be drawn up. The manager advised that no intermediate care, only respite care was provided within the service. DS0000032204.V344823.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 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. JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for the following standard(s): Standards 7, 8, 9 and 10. People who use the service experience good quality outcomes in this area. We have made this judgement using a range of evidence, including a visit to this service. Accurate care plans and medication records will contribute to the delivery of care. Service users were satisfied with the care they received. DS0000032204.V344823.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 11 EVIDENCE: On examination of the care plans, from three service users, it was established that all three care plans were up to date, and had been evaluated on a monthly basis. There were daily entries within the care plans. These entries recorded the care delivered on a daily basis. Comprehensive risk assessments were included within the documentation. However there was no evidence to show that the assessments and care plans had been discussed with the service user or relative, as indicated in Standard 7. The manager advised that the documentation was standardised to all the Local Authority homes, and that there was no section on the document for the service user’s or relative’s signature. She agreed to raise this fact with her manager. Service users and relatives expressed their views, during the inspection. Their opinions were; ‘The care is good / very good’. ‘I’m looked after very well’. The storage, ordering, administration and disposal of medication procedures were discussed with the manager. The procedures explained by the manager were satisfactory. There was a signature-checking document, which contained the initials as written on the medication administration document and the member of staff’s signature. On examination of the medication administration records it was found that there were no omissions of signatures. All medication records had been signed when being checked in from the pharmacy. DS0000032204.V344823.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 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. JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for the following standard(s): Standards 12, 13, 14 and 15. People who use the service experience good quality outcomes in this area. We have made this judgement using a range of evidence, including a visit to this service. Activities were organised within the service, which would provide stimulation to service users and enhance their quality of life. Service users were given the opportunity to exercise their right of choice regarding the provision of meals. EVIDENCE: The manager advised that three members of staff were responsible for the activities, entertainment and outings. At the entrance to the service there was a large display board. On the board was displayed the weekly activities programme and monthly events such as the motivational therapy session and the entertainer. DS0000032204.V344823.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 13 The weekly activities programme consisted of a certain activity each day. For example, on the day of inspection, the activity was ‘manures’. It was observed that staff were undertaking the care of the service users’ nails. Outings consisted of a planned trip to Cleethorpes on the 7th August 07.The manager advised that the resort was very popular with the service users. On discussing the activities with the service users, their opinions were that; ‘My nails are beautiful, they are so kind’. ‘We do things now and again’. ‘We will be having bingo later, not sure when’. Regarding the meals, the manager advised that a choice of cereals and toast or a full English breakfast was available. The main meal of the day was at midday and offered two choices. The choice of meals was displayed on the ‘Information board’. The information board contained the menu, the activity for the day and the names of the staff on duty. The manager advised that staff asked the service users for their choice of meal and this was recorded on a meal planner and taken to the kitchen. The meal planner for the day of inspection was observed. Copies of four weekly menus were seen, within the kitchen, and the food on the date of the visit was being prepared according to this menu. Positive comments were received from the service users regarding the food provision. The general comments were that; ‘The food is good.’ (2 service users stated) ‘I don’t eat a lot, but have what I want’. ‘They ask us what we want for dinner’. DS0000032204.V344823.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 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. JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for the following standard(s): Standards 16 and 18. People who use the service experience good quality outcomes in this area. We have made this judgement using a range of evidence, including a visit to this service. The service had a complaints procedure in place, and it was operating according to the Local Authority policy, including the referrals to the Safeguarding Adults team. This would provide confidence that complaints were taken seriously and acted upon to address any shortfalls in care or service provision. The service was able to evidence that the staff had received safeguarding adults training. Therefore staff would be aware of their responsibility regarding the protection of vulnerable adults. EVIDENCE: The service had a complaints procedure within their welcome pack and booklet which was available to service users, relatives and visitors. Since the last inspection, the manager had introduced a complaints book, as to comply with the requirement. DS0000032204.V344823.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 15 On examination of the document titled ‘ Notifications of Complaint, Comment and Complaints’ this document contained all the necessary information regarding date of complaint, information on the complaint, who was dealing with the complaint and when it was resolved. On discussing the investigation process, the manager advised that any additional information, including statements and correspondence would be attached to the initial document. On examination of the complaint book, it was established that the information was being duplicated, therefore it was agreed that the book was not necessary. Within the Annual Quality Assurance Assessment (AQAA), which was submitted to the CSCI, prior to the inspection, it stated that there had been 4 complaints with none upheld. On discussing this information with the manager, she sought clarification on the term of ‘upheld’. On explaining that the term meant that the complaint was found to have substance and was correct. The manager identified that that the information within the AQAA was incorrect and that 2 of the complaints had been upheld. All 4 complaints were regarding care issues. Regarding safeguarding adults, the safeguarding policies and procedures were available within the manager’s office. Staff had undertaken safeguarding adults training, and the manager was able to evidence this. DS0000032204.V344823.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 16 Environment The intended outcomes for Standards 19 – 26 are: 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. Service users live in a safe, well-maintained environment. Service users have access to safe and comfortable indoor and outdoor communal facilities. Service users have sufficient and suitable lavatories and washing facilities. Service users have the specialist equipment they require to maximise their independence. Service users’ own rooms suit their needs. Service users live in safe, comfortable bedrooms with their own possessions around them. Service users live in safe, comfortable surroundings. The home is clean, pleasant and hygienic. The Commission considers Standards 19 and 26 the key standards to be inspected. JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for the following standard(s): Standards 19 and 26. People who use the service experience good quality outcomes in this area. We have made this judgement using a range of evidence, including a visit to this service. The environment, monitored at the site visit, had been maintained to a good standard and provided a safe, well-maintained environment for services users. EVIDENCE: On touring the building, the home had been decorated throughout to a high standard. It was clean and odour free. The service users’ rooms were homely and had been personalised and contained photographs, personal belongings, which the individual or the family had provided. DS0000032204.V344823.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 17 During the tour it was observed that care records had been placed in a plastic transparent draw within a bathroom. On discussing the unsecured records with the manager she advised that the records were relating to service users who received care from the community nurse, and the records were not the services, but were the nurse’s records. The manager agreed that any records relating to service users should not be easily available and needed to be secure. The documents were removed to the manager’s office. The manager advised that she would discuss the security of the records with the community nurses. Positive comments were received from the service users and relatives regarding the home. The general comments were that; ‘It’s nice here’. ‘It’s clean and nicely decorated’. ‘The dining tables are always nicely laid out’ DS0000032204.V344823.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 18 Staffing The intended outcomes for Standards 27 – 30 are: 27. 28. 29. 30. Service users’ needs are met by the numbers and skill mix of staff. Service users are in safe hands at all times. Service users are supported and protected by the home’s recruitment policy and practices. Staff are trained and competent to do their jobs. The Commission consider all the above are key standards to be inspected. JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for the following standard(s): Standards 27, 28, 29 and 30 People who use the service experience adequate quality outcomes in this area. We have made this judgement using a range of evidence, including a visit to this service. The staff recruitment process should provide protection for the service users. The manager was not able to provide evidence that all staff had received the necessary training, which could reflect on the quality of care being delivered to the service users. EVIDENCE: On examination of the staff rotas and the number of staff on duty, the following was established: Am shift. Pm shift. Night shift 1 manager (deputy, assistant or shift) plus 5 care staff. 1 manager (deputy, assistant or shift) plus 4 care staff. 3 staff (either 3 care staff or 2 care staff and 1 domestic). DS0000032204.V344823.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 19 Plus The manager for the service. Ancillary staff included. Domestics, catering staff and laundry. Caring for 36 service users. A full assessment of the dependency levels of the service users was not undertaken and compared with the indicated staffing levels. On requesting to examine the staff files, the manager identified that the files were held at the Human resources department of the Borough Council. She contacted the department and the files requested by the inspector were delivered to the service for inspection. It was discussed with the manager that some councils had certain sections of the staff files held within the service and other information held at the Human resources. However clearly the system created by the Doncaster Borough Council was effective as they were able to produce the files on request. On examination of the three staff files, two of the staff files only had one reference in each file. It was established that the two staff had been employed within the service for a considerable number of years. The third staff file was relating to a member of staff who had only been employed for a few years. This file contained two references. The manager was able to demonstrate that the checking procedures had changed and that two references were now obtained, the evidence found within the third file supported this. On examination of the files it was established that they contained the required documentation, including Criminal Records Bureau and POVA (Protection of Vulnerable Adults) checks, except for the references as stated above. Therefore a requirement was not made regarding the staff files as the system were in place to obtain all the required information. On requesting to exam the staff training records the manager produced lists of training which contained the names of staff who had undertaken training. On examination of the lists it was established that not all staff were included on each of the lists. On examining the fire training and moving and handling training list, and other staff records, it was established that a large percentage of staff had not received training in these areas, since 2005. On discussing training with three staff, two members of staff identified that they had not received training on fire or moving and handling since 2005. One member of staff confirmed that she had received some training in these areas, as part of her induction. DS0000032204.V344823.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 20 The manager identified that should a new piece of equipment, used for moving and handling purposes, be introduced into the service, then risk assessments were produced and staff on duty would receive training from the occupational therapist. Then other staff would be instructed on the use of the equipment by the staff who had received the training. The manager advised that there had been a recent change of managers within the service and that the new manager responsible for training had just started reorganising the training programmes. The benefits of producing an annual matrix or planner for the staff and training courses were discussed with the manager. There was a previous requirement that 50 of the staff achieved NVQ level 2. The manager confirms in the AQAA that 47 of staff have achieved NVQ 2 and that other staff are currently undertaking the qualification, and the manager advised that the 50 will be achieved within the next week or so, as some staff are near completion of the course. Because of the fact that the percentage will be achieved within a short period of time, this requirement was not repeated. DS0000032204.V344823.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 21 Management and Administration The intended outcomes for Standards 31 – 38 are: 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. Service users live in a home which is run and managed by a person who is fit to be in charge, of good character and able to discharge his or her responsibilities fully. Service users benefit from the ethos, leadership and management approach of the home. The home is run in the best interests of service users. Service users are safeguarded by the accounting and financial procedures of the home. Service users’ financial interests are safeguarded. Staff are appropriately supervised. Service users’ rights and best interests are safeguarded by the home’s record keeping, policies and procedures. The health, safety and welfare of service users and staff are promoted and protected. The Commission considers Standards 31, 33, 35 and 38 the key standards to be inspected. JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for the following standard(s): Standards 31, 33, 35, 36 and 38. People who use the service experience good quality outcomes in this area. We have made this judgement using a range of evidence, including a visit to this service. An experienced registered manager is in post. This will contributed to the effective organisation and operation of the service. However there had been a lack of supervision from the other managers, which could reflect on the quality of care received by the service users. Extensive quality assurance systems were in place that should assist the managers and company to measure the service against expected outcomes. DS0000032204.V344823.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 22 EVIDENCE: There was a registered manager, who had been in post for two and a half years. She advised that she had 23 years in care and 19 years in management and had completed the Registered Manager’s Award. She had also attained a HNC qualification in care management. Regarding service users monies there was a credit and debit system in operation. The system operated by using separate envelopes for storage of monies and individual accounting sheets for each service user. Some service users had individual bank accounts. The importance of ensuring the use of service user’s money to enhance their quality of life, and not being left accumulating in the account, and the new bulletin ‘In safe keeping’ published by CSCI was discussed. On examination of the supervision records, it was established that supervision had occurred on a very infrequent basis. It was established on the three staff files monitored that; One member of staff had 2 supervisions in 2005/06 and had none in 2007, despite it now being July 07. One member of staff had 3 supervisions in 2006, and 1 in 2007. Another member of staff had 1 in 2007. This was her first year in employment. The expected number of supervision is 6 per annum. A considerable effort would be required to achieve all staff having 6 supervisions within 2007. Regarding Quality Assurance, various monitoring occurred. The examples given were that; Every Monday an environmental check of the building occurred and a list of work was produced. Clearly this system was working well, as no environment issues were found at this inspection. Monthly monitoring of the medication, COSHH and kitchen services. Meeting with staff and residents, which had minutes, recorded. Quarterly questionnaires sent out to the service users and family. Monitoring by the senior managers of the Borough Council. Regulation 26 documentations, which are a record of the registered person’s monthly visits, was complied on a monthly basis, evidence of this was seen at the visit. DS0000032204.V344823.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 23 Regulation 37 notices, which are documents that are sent to the Commission regarding untoward occurrences, including falls, accidents etc; have been received by CSCI (Commission for Social Care Inspection). The Annual Quality Assurance Assessment (AQAA), which is a self-assessment document, which the manager of the service completes prior to an inspection, should have been returned by the 31/05/07. It was not returned until the 25/06/07. It was recognised that the document was new to the service, and therefore the delay was accepted on this occasion. It was discussed with the manager that in future the AQAA must be returned on time, as it is a requirement under the Care Standards Act and subsequent regulations. It was accepted that the supervision and training, as stated in the last section were the responsibility of other managers who were no longer employed within the service, and the new managers had started creating training records and supervision records. However these gaps should have been highlighted within the Regulation 26 visits and acted upon and the inspection process takes on board the evidence presented from the last inspection to the date of this inspection, and is reflected in this report. DS0000032204.V344823.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 24 SCORING OF OUTCOMES This page summarises the assessment of the extent to which the National Minimum Standards for Care Homes for Older People have been met and uses the following scale. The scale ranges from: 4 Standard Exceeded 2 Standard Almost Met (Commendable) (Minor Shortfalls) 3 Standard Met 1 Standard Not Met (No Shortfalls) (Major Shortfalls) “X” in the standard met box denotes standard not assessed on this occasion “N/A” in the standard met box denotes standard not applicable CHOICE OF HOME Standard No Score 1 2 3 4 5 6 ENVIRONMENT Standard No Score 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 X X 3 X X 3 HEALTH AND PERSONAL CARE Standard No Score 7 3 8 3 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 3 17 X 18 3 3 X X X X X X 3 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 3 X 3 2 X 2 DS0000032204.V344823.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 25 Are there any outstanding requirements from the last inspection? NO STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS This section sets out the actions, which must be taken so that the registered person/s meets the Care Standards Act 2000, Care Homes Regulations 2001 and the National Minimum Standards. The Registered Provider(s) must comply with the given timescales. No. 1 2 Standard OP28 OP38 OP36 Regulation 18 18 Requirement All staff must receive annual training in fire and moving and handling. All staff must receive supervision at least 6 times per year. Timescale for action 04/08/07 31/12/07 RECOMMENDATIONS These recommendations relate to National Minimum Standards and are seen as good practice for the Registered Provider/s to consider carrying out. No. 1 Refer to Standard OP33 Good Practice Recommendations The Annual Quality Assurance Assessment should be completed and returned within the specified timescale. DS0000032204.V344823.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 26 Commission for Social Care Inspection Sheffield Area Office Ground Floor, Unit 3 Waterside Court Bold Street Sheffield S9 2LR 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 DS0000032204.V344823.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 27 - 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!