Inspection on 24/01/07 for Rowland House

This inspection was carried out on 24th January 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 found no outstanding requirements from the previous inspection report, but made 3 statutory requirements (actions the home must comply with) as a result of this inspection.

Other inspections for this house

Rowland House 11/12/08

Rowland House 21/07/05

Rowland House 03/05/05

Rowland House 14/09/04

Rowland House 10/06/04

Similar services:

Thorndene

Sutton Lodge Nursing Home

Wingham Court

Bethany Lodge

17 John Street

Red Oaks

Clare House Nursing Home

Broad Oak Manor Nursing Home

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

CARE HOME ADULTS 18-65 Rowland House Rowland House 1a Lime Tree Avenue Weston Green Thames Ditton Surrey KT7 0NY Lead Inspector Deavanand Ramdas Unannounced Inspection 24th January 2007 10:00 Rowland House DS0000013893.V325414.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 Rowland House DS0000013893.V325414.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. Rowland House DS0000013893.V325414.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 3 SERVICE INFORMATION Name of service Rowland House Address 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) Rowland House 1a Lime Tree Avenue Weston Green Thames Ditton Surrey KT7 0NY 0208 972 9143 Titleworth Ltd To be confirmed. Care Home 6 Category(ies) of Learning disability (6), Physical disability (6) registration, with number of places Rowland House DS0000013893.V325414.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 4 SERVICE INFORMATION Conditions of registration: 1. 2. Services users may be admitted in either the category LD (Learning Disabilities) or PD (Physical disabilities) The age/age range of the persons to be accommodated will be:20-55 Years 3rd May 2005 Date of last inspection Brief Description of the Service: Rowland House is registered with the Commission for Social Care Inspection to provide accommodation and care to six service users with physical and learning disability. The home is located in a residential area close to public amenities and other facilities. Accommodation is on three floors accessed by lift or stairs and includes an office, lounge and dining area, kitchen, bathrooms, toilets, laundry area and six single bedrooms some with en-suite facilities. The home is adapted to accommodate service users who use wheelchairs. The home has a garden which is private, secure and accessible with wheelchair access. Private parking is available. The range of fees charged by the home is £1000.00 to £2700.00 per week. Rowland House DS0000013893.V325414.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 5 SUMMARY This is an overview of what the inspector found during the inspection. This was the homes site visit as part of the key inspection process by the Commission for Social Care Inspection henceforth referred to as the CSCI. The visit was carried out by D. Ramdas, regulation inspector and included a tour of the premises, interviews with staff and service users, and a review of documents and records. The visit commenced at 10:00hrs and finished at 14:30hrs. The inspector would like to thank the responsible individual for giving an overview of the company, the home manager, staff, service users, relatives, care manager and other health care professionals for their contribution. What the service does well: The home has good procedures for assessing the needs of prospective service users and care planning reflects the changing needs, personal goals and aspirations of service users. During discussions a service user commented ‘‘I am happy here, you won’t find any problems’’ and ‘‘staff are OK, I have a key worker’’. A relative commented on a quality assurance questionaire ‘‘personal care has always been good, second to none’’. The home values equality and diversity and service users are involved in staff recruitment and decision making in the home. The inspector noted staff have value based training and care plans reflect the unique needs of individual service users including arrangements to practice religious beliefs. During discussions a service user commented ‘‘every Friday we have meetings in the home’’. The premises are good with a good standard of décor, furniture and fittings, and a garden which is private, secure and accessible. During discussions a service user commented ‘‘it is a nice house, it is lovely’’ and ‘‘it is something I have noticed, it is always clean and tidy’’. Meals at the home are good and offer variety, choice and healthy eating options. Further evidence confirmed arrangements for menu plans to have input from a dietician to promote good nutrition. During discussions a service user remarked ‘‘lunch was very nice, I enjoyed it’’. Activities at the home are good with service users accessing the local community for leisure and recreational activities. The inspector noted the home had activity plans and activity logs to reflect the choices and preferences of service users in the home. During discussions a service user commented ‘‘I go to the day centre Monday, Wednesday and Friday’’ and ‘‘I get visitors every weekend’’. Rowland House DS0000013893.V325414.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 6 The home had a complaints policy and kept a record of complaints made about the home. The inspector noted two complaints recorded and investigated with appropriate management action taken. During discussions a member of staff commented ‘‘I am aware of the complaints policy’’ and a service user remarked ‘‘I am happy, I never had to make a complaint’’. No safeguarding adult matters were recorded about the home. The company has an IIP (Investor in People) accreditation which reflects the company’s commitment to staff training and development. During discussions a member of staff stated ‘‘I have proper training to do the job’’. 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. Rowland House DS0000013893.V325414.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 Rowland House DS0000013893.V325414.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 Quality in this outcome area is good. This judgement has been made using available evidence including a visit to this service. The arrangements for assessing needs are good ensuring prospective service users’ needs and aspirations are assessed before admission to the home. EVIDENCE: The manager stated prospective service users are admitted to the home on the basis of a full assessment of needs undertaken by professionals competent to do so. A review of documents confirmed the home had a policy on needs assessment and a pre-assessment checklist that covered health needs, personal care and social support. The inspector noted needs assessment were dated and signed by service users and staff with input from relatives, physiotherapist, speech therapist and other professionals as appropriate. During discussions a service user remarked ‘‘I do physio and go to the pub for a drink’’ reflected in needs assessment records and care plans. Rowland House DS0000013893.V325414.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&9 Quality in this outcome area is good. This judgement has been made using available evidence including a visit to this service. Care planning is good reflecting the changing needs and personal goals of service users. Decision making is good enabling service users to make decisions about their lives with assistance as needed. The arrangements for risk taking are good ensuring service users are supported to take risks as part of an independent lifestyle. EVIDENCE: The manager stated the home had individual care plans. The inspector sampled documents and noted the home had a policy on service users’ plans and individual care plans were regularly reviewed, dated and signed by service users and the manager. Further evidence confirmed the home had a key worker system to promote continuity of care and care plans covered all aspects of personal care, social support and healthcare needs. During discussions a service user commented ‘‘I am happy here, you won’t find any problems’’. Rowland House DS0000013893.V325414.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 10 The manager stated staff respect service users’ right to make decisions and during discussions a service user stated ‘‘every Friday we have house meetings’’. A review of records confirmed the home had regular house meetings to discuss care plans, menu and fire safety. Further evidence indicated service users were involved in staff recruitment and the home had information about leisure activities to assist service users to make choices and decisions. On the day of the inspection observations confirmed a service user accessed the community for leisure activities of his preferred choice which included going to the cinema using public transport. The home had a policy on risk assessment and risk taking management and staff have training in risk assessment reflected in the home’s induction programme. A review of records confirmed service users have risk assessment plans which were dated and signed by staff and covered general mobility, falls and community access to promote the independence of service users. On the day of the inspection observations confirmed staff supported a service user in the preparation of meals. During discussions the service user commented ‘‘staff are OK, I have a key worker’’. Rowland House DS0000013893.V325414.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 11 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&17 Quality in this outcome area is good. This judgement has been made using available evidence including a visit to this service. The arrangements for occupation are good ensuring service users participate in valued and fulfilling activities. Community links are good ensuring service users are part of the local community. Relationships are good enabling service users to maintain family links. Daily routines are good ensuring service users’ rights are respected and responsibilities recognised in their daily lives. Meals at the home are good and offer variety, choice and healthy eating options. EVIDENCE: The manager stated service users take part in valued and fulfilling activities and a review of records confirmed service users have individual activity programmes and activity logs. The inspector noted service users attended day centres, accessed the local library and were involved in reading and writing poetry. During discussions a service user commented ‘‘I go to the day centre Rowland House DS0000013893.V325414.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 12 Monday, Wednesday and Friday’’ and observations confirmed service users displayed their art work in the lounge for pleasure and enjoyment. The home had a policy on community links and social inclusion and a review of records confirmed service users accessed the local community including shops, pubs, cinema and other places on interest. Further evidence confirmed the home values equality and diversity and service users have access to the local church to satisfy their religious needs. The manager stated the home had a visitor’s policy and family and friends are welcomed at the home. During discussions a service user commented ‘‘I get visitors every weekend’’ and a review of records confirmed relatives visited the home to promote family links. The manager confirmed service users can see visitors in their rooms and in private if requested. The home had a policy on respecting service users’ rights and independence and staff have training in privacy, dignity and rights reflected in the home’s induction programme. Observations confirmed staff addressed service users by their preferred names and the responsible individual and manager knocked on doors before entering bedrooms and bathrooms. Further evidence indicated service users have unrestricted access to the home and staff interacted with service users in the lounge and kitchen during the preparation of lunch. The manager stated the home had written menu plans. A review of records confirmed the home had a policy on nutrition and menu plans reflected variety and choice with healthy eating options. On the day of the inspection service users had freshly prepared pasta tuna bake for lunch and dessert was stewed cinnamon apple with ice cream. Observations confirmed service users were involved in the preparation of meals and mealtime was relaxed and unhurried. The inspector noted a visit has been arranged with a dietician to evaluate the menu plans and to assess the nutritional needs of service users. During discussions a service user commented ‘‘lunch was very nice, I enjoyed it’’. Rowland House DS0000013893.V325414.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 13 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&20 Quality in this outcome area is good. This judgement has been made using available evidence including a visit to this service. The arrangements for personal support are good ensuring service users receive personal support in the way they require and prefer. The systems for healthcare are good ensuring service users’ physical and emotional needs are met. The management of medication is good and safeguard the welfare of service users. EVIDENCE: The manager stated the home had a routine and service users are provided with personal support. A review of records confirmed service users’ care plans reflected flexible personal support and included a morning routine, evening routine, night support, moving and handling and bedroom privacy dated and signed by the service user, relatives and staff. Further evidence confirmed service users have good personal hygiene with specialist support from a physiotherapist to maximise service users’ independence. During discussions a service user commented ‘‘staff are fine, I am happy here’’. The home had arrangements for meeting the healthcare needs of service users who were registered with a local GP (General Practitioner) with input from a speech and language therapist, district nurse and continence advisor to Rowland House DS0000013893.V325414.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 14 promote health and hygiene. The inspector noted service users have access to a chiropodist, dentist and optician with referrals to other relevant professionals made through the GP as appropriate. A care manager and GP completed a questionaire and indicated satisfaction with the overall care of service users in the home. The home had a policy on medications and a service level agreement with a local chemist to supply medications to the home. A review of records indicated medication record sheets were dated and signed by staff and the home kept a record of medications received by and disposed of by the home to prevent mishandling of medications. Observations confirmed the home had adequate storage of medications and staff have accredited training in medications to promote health. Further evidence confirmed the home had a list of staff competent to administer medications with specimen signatures for information and homely remedies were listed and approved by a doctor to safeguard the welfare of service users. Rowland House DS0000013893.V325414.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 15 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&23 Quality in this outcome area is good. This judgement has been made using available evidence including a visit to this service. The complaint’s process is good ensuring service users feel their views are listened to and acted on. The arrangements for protection need strengthening to safeguard the welfare of service users. EVIDENCE: The manager stated the home had a complaints policy and the inspector noted complaint information in the statement of purpose and service user guide. The home kept a record of complaints which was sampled. The inspector noted two complaints were recorded about the home, which were investigated and appropriate management action taken. During discussions a member of staff stated ‘‘I am aware of the complaints policy’’ and a service user commented ‘‘I am happy, I never had to make a complaint’’. The home had a policy on safeguarding adults and a copy of the local authority (Surrey County Council) procedures on protection of vulnerable adults. The home had a whistle blowing policy and staff have training in Brain Injury to ensure the emotional needs of service users are understood and dealt with appropriately. A review of records confirmed staff were in need of refresher training in safeguarding adults and following discussions with the manager action has been required in respect of this matter. The inspector noted no safeguarding adult matters were recorded about the home. Rowland House DS0000013893.V325414.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 16 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&30 Quality in this outcome area is good. This judgement has been made using available evidence including a visit to this service. The premises are good enabling service users to live in a homely and comfortable environment. The arrangements for hygiene are good ensuring the home is clean and hygienic for service users. EVIDENCE: The home’s premises are suitable for its stated purpose and are in keeping with the local community. On the day of the inspection the home was clean, well ventilated and free from offensive odours. Observations confirmed the home had a good standard of décor with good quality furniture and fittings. A review of records confirmed the home had a visit from the local authority (Surrey County Council) fire service and environmental health department with appropriate management action taken. The inspector noted the premises are accessible to service users in wheelchairs with level access and doorways into communal areas, bathing and toilet facilities and the grounds. During discussions a service user commented ‘it is a nice house, it is lovely’’. Rowland House DS0000013893.V325414.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 17 The home had a policy on infection control and adequate laundry facilities with an industrial washing machine and domestic dryer. Observations confirmed hand washing facilities were prominently sited in the kitchen and laundry area and staff practiced infection control measures by washing their hands regularly to prevent the spread of infection. Following discussions with the manager a recommendation has been made for the home to consult with environmental health about food storage in the laundry area of the home. A service user commented ‘‘it is one thing I have noticed, it is always clean and tidy’’. Rowland House DS0000013893.V325414.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 18 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 Quality in this outcome area is good. This judgement has been made using available evidence including a visit to this service. The arrangements for qualifications are good ensuring service users are supported by competent staff. Recruitment and vetting practices need strengthening to safeguard the welfare of service users. Training and development is good ensuring service users needs are met by appropriately trained staff. EVIDENCE: The home had a policy on staff training and development and the operational manager is currently reviewing training in the home to ensure it is adequate to meet the needs of service users. Observations confirmed staff are accessible to, approachable by, and comfortable with service users. Further evidence indicated staff have knowledge of the disabilities of service users and maintained professional relationships with GP’s social workers, therapists and other agencies. The inspector noted two staff are working towards the NVQ qualification and five staff are registered on an NVQ programme dated 15/01/2007. During discussions a member of staff confirmed ‘‘I have proper training to do the job, I am doing NVQ training’’. Following discussions with the manager a Rowland House DS0000013893.V325414.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 19 recommendation has been made for the home to do an action plan with timescales to achieve NVQ training targets for staff. The home had a policy on recruitment and the manager confirmed employees are vetted before being employed by the company. The inspector sampled staff recruitment files at the home which had completed application forms, written references, statement of terms and conditions, job descriptions and CRB (Criminal Record Bureau) disclosure information. The home had copies of the GSCC (General Social Care Council) code of conduct and as previously stated in this report service users are involved in staff selection. Staff recruitment files were in good order, well presented and stored in a locked cabinet for confidentiality. Following discussions with the manager a requirement has been made for recruitment files to have a recent photograph of employees to safeguard the welfare of service users. The company has an IIP (Investor in People) accreditation which reflects the company’s commitment to staff training and development. The home had a policy on induction and a structured staff induction programme which covered policies and procedures, roles and responsibilities, equal opportunity, recording, personal safety and other relevant and appropriate areas. The inspector noted training and development are linked to the home’s service aims and a relative commented on a quality assurance questionaire ‘‘so much has improved that it is difficult to judge properly as these improvements in activities generally going on in the community’’. Following discussions with the manager a recommendation has been made for the home’s induction programme to reflect Skills for Care common induction standards. Rowland House DS0000013893.V325414.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 20 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&42 Quality in this outcome area is good. This judgement has been made using available evidence including a visit to this service. The arrangements for the day to day management of the home is good ensuring service users benefit from a well run home. The systems for quality assurance are good ensuring service users participate in the review of the home. The arrangements for health and safety need strengthening to ensure safe working practices. EVIDENCE: The home has appointed a manager who has submitted an application for registration with the CSCI. The manager has a job description and is aware of her role and responsibilities. The inspector noted the home had an organisational chart with clear lines of accountability and communication. Policies and procedures have been revised, updated and implemented and during discussions a member of staff stated ‘‘the manager is flexible, she has improved training’’ and a health care professional commented on a Rowland House DS0000013893.V325414.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 21 questionaire ‘‘the person in charge is a capable person and knowledgeable of the care of group of clients’’. The home had a policy on quality assurance with regular monitoring visits. The inspector noted the home used questionnaires to survey service users and relatives to obtain feedback about the home. A relative commented ‘‘personal care has always been good, second to none’’ and ‘‘communication sometimes lets a situation down’’. The inspector noted the home has improved staff shift handovers to promote good communication in the home. Service users were informed about the planned inspection by the CSCI and as previously stated in this report service users are consulted and involved in decision making in the home. During discussions a service user commented ‘‘it is a superb well run home. You won’t find any problems”. The home had a policy on health and safety and staff have training in health and safety, fire safety, food hygiene, first aid and manual handling. Further evidence confirmed the home had a policy on COSHH (Control of Substances Hazardous to Health) with products appropriately stored in a locked cupboard. Observations indicated the home had health and safety information displayed in the hallway and a review of records confirmed the home had a current gas safety certificate, service inspections for the lift, fire equipment, emergency lighting and emergency call systems. The kitchen appeared clean and hygienic with food safety procedures in place to safeguard the welfare of service users. Following discussions with the manager a requirement has been made for staff to have training in infection control to prevent the spread of infection in the home. Rowland House DS0000013893.V325414.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 22 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 x 26 x 27 x 28 x 29 x 30 3 STAFFING Standard No Score 31 x 32 3 33 x 34 2 35 3 36 X CONDUCT AND MANAGEMENT OF THE HOME Standard No 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 Score 3 3 x 3 x LIFESTYLES Standard No Score 11 x 12 3 13 3 14 x 15 3 16 3 17 3 PERSONAL AND HEALTHCARE SUPPORT Standard No 18 19 20 21 Score 3 3 3 x 3 x 3 x x 2 x Rowland House DS0000013893.V325414.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 23 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 Standard YA23 Regulation 13(6) Requirement The registered person must ensure staff have refresher training in safeguarding adults to safeguard the welfare of service users. The registered person must ensure that the home has all the required information regarding persons employed including a recent photograph of the employee to safeguard the welfare of service users. The registered person must ensure staff have training in infection control to prevent the spread of infection in the home. Timescale for action 01/05/07 2 YA34 7,9,19 Schedule 2 01/03/07 3 YA42 13(3) 01/05/07 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 YA24 Good Practice Recommendations The registered person shall consider ensuring the home consults with the local authority (Surrey County Council) DS0000013893.V325414.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 24 Rowland House 2 3 YA32 YA35 environmental health department pertaining to food storage in the laundry area of the home. The registered person shall consider ensuring the home has an action plan with timescales outlining how the home will meet staff training targets in respect of NVQ training. The registered person shall consider ensuring the home’s induction programme reflect Skills for Care common induction standards. Rowland House DS0000013893.V325414.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 25 Commission for Social Care Inspection Surrey Area Office The Wharf Abbey Mill Business Park Eashing Surrey GU7 2QN 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 Rowland House DS0000013893.V325414.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 26 - Please note that this information is included on www.bestcarehome.co.uk under license from the regulator. Re-publishing this information is in breach of the terms of use of that website. Discrete codes and changes have been inserted throughout the textual data shown on the site that will provide incontrovertable proof of copying in the event this information is re-published on other websites. The policy of www.bestcarehome.co.uk is to use all legal avenues to pursue such offenders, including recovery of costs. You have been warned!