Inspection on 12/06/07 for Royal Garden Hotel

This inspection was carried out on 12th June 2007.

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 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

Royal Garden Hotel 11/06/09

Royal Garden Hotel 30/06/08

Royal Garden Hotel 19/12/05

Royal Garden Hotel 24/01/05

Royal Garden Hotel 02/09/04

Similar services:

The Shelley

Springfield House

Sutton Lodge Nursing Home

St Helier`s Residential Hotel

St Joseph`s

Ridgemount

Wingham Court

Old Hastings House

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

CARE HOMES FOR OLDER PEOPLE Royal Garden Hotel 1 Princess Avenue Bognor Regis West Sussex PO21 2QT Lead Inspector Val Sevier Unannounced Inspection 12th June 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 Royal Garden Hotel DS0000014697.V338922.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. Royal Garden Hotel DS0000014697.V338922.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 3 SERVICE INFORMATION Name of service Royal Garden Hotel Address 1 Princess Avenue Bognor Regis West Sussex PO21 2QT 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) 01243 841026 www.royalgarden.net Crescentworth Limited Post Vacant Care Home 36 Category(ies) of Old age, not falling within any other category registration, with number (36) of places Royal Garden Hotel DS0000014697.V338922.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 4 SERVICE INFORMATION Conditions of registration: Date of last inspection 30th April 2007 Brief Description of the Service: The Royal Garden Hotel is a care home providing personal care and accommodation for thirty-six persons (OP) of old age not falling within any other category. Crescentworth Limited owns the home and the registered manager is Mrs J Walker RGN. The responsible individual on behalf of the company is Mr C Lindsell. The Royal Gardens Hotel is purpose built and provides a high standard of accommodation throughout. It is positioned in Bognor Regis over looking the Marine Gardens and sea front. Shops and other local amenities are close by. The property is equipped with a 12-person passenger lift to all floors and has an assisted spa bath and shower units. The fees for the home range between £480 and £750 which is dependent on the size, location and view from the room. Royal Garden Hotel DS0000014697.V338922.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 5 SUMMARY This is an overview of what the inspector found during the inspection. The purpose of the inspection was to assess how well the home is doing in meeting the key National Minimum Standards and Regulations. The findings of this report are based on several different sources of evidence. These included: the Annual Quality Assurance Assessment (AQAA) completed by the home, and an unannounced visit to the home, which was carried out on the 12th June 2007, during which the inspector was able to have discussions with the manager, deputy manager, one of the directors and staff and have interaction with the residents at the home. During the visit to the home a tour of the premises was carried out which included bedrooms. Staff and care records were sampled and in addition to speaking with staff and residents, their day-to-day interaction was observed. All regulatory activity since the last inspection was reviewed and taken into account including notifications sent to the Commission for Social Care Inspection. The inspector received 11 surveys from people who use the service comments from which are included in this report. What the service does well: The home welcomes people who will use the service and their families or representatives, to visit the home and assess the facilities of the home by having a two-week stay. Comments included: “we all have had to sell our property to be resident here which is rather stressful, however we could not have made a better move”. “Since coming here I have secure and supported”. Daily routines in the home were flexible and people who use the service being encouraged to make choices for themselves and exercise personal autonomy. Comments included: “staff meet needs quickly and efficiently”. “I feel free to come and go without comment”. People who live at the home were positive about the food that the home provided and were pleased with the range of activities in which they could participate and the condition of the accommodation that they occupied. Comments included:“The staff are kind and caring, since the new manager came there is a much happier atmosphere and the meals have greatly improved”. The Royal Garden Hotel is a pleasant environment that is well maintained and homely; there is a lounge and dining room, all rooms are singly occupied although there are double rooms to accommodate couples if requested. The rooms vary in size and offer alternative views and accommodation. Royal Garden Hotel DS0000014697.V338922.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 6 The staff team appear to be dedicated to the homes philosophy of offering care and support in a ‘hotel’ environment, with people who use the service termed ‘guests’. What has improved since the last inspection? What they could do better: The care plans could be improved with more detail of how staff support needs of individuals. The management have stated that they are reviewing how care plan records are written and maintained. Risk assessment need to be carried out as part of the care planning process, for activities undertaken by the individuals to promote their safety as far as possible. Staff must receive regular and up to date training in safeguarding adults, mandatory areas such as manual handling, food hygiene, first aid, health and safety and any other training that is required to ensure that they can support the needs of the people that use the service. When seeking new staff, all checks must have been completed before staff begin work at the home. All staff must receive regular training in fire safety to promote the safety of all at the home. Please contact the provider for advice of actions taken in response to this Royal Garden Hotel DS0000014697.V338922.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 7 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. Royal Garden Hotel DS0000014697.V338922.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 8 DETAILS OF INSPECTOR FINDINGS CONTENTS Choice of Home (Standards 1–6) Health and Personal Care (Standards 7-11) Daily Life and Social Activities (Standards 12-15) Complaints and Protection (Standards 16-18) Environment (Standards 19-26) Staffing (Standards 27-30) Management and Administration (Standards 31-38) Scoring of Outcomes Statutory Requirements Identified During the Inspection Royal Garden Hotel DS0000014697.V338922.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 9 Choice of Home The intended outcomes for Standards 1 – 6 are: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Prospective service users have the information they need to make an informed choice about where to live. Each service user has a written contract/ statement of terms and conditions with the home. No service user moves into the home without having had his/her needs assessed and been assured that these will be met. Service users and their representatives know that the home they enter will meet their needs. Prospective service users and their relatives and friends have an opportunity to visit and assess the quality, facilities and suitability of the home. Service users assessed and referred solely for intermediate care are helped to maximise their independence and return home. The Commission considers Standards 3 and 6 the key standards to be inspected. JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for the following standard(s): 1&3 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. People that use the service can feel assured that their needs will be assessed and that the home has an understanding of their needs using the assessment process. EVIDENCE: On receipt of an enquiry of interest in the home, a statement of purpose and service user guide, which the home refers to as a ‘brochure’, is sent out. The brochure contains information on for example: the philosophy of care, services available, an idea of what the individual may need to bring with them when moving to the home, pictures of the home and comments from current and previous residents. If the enquirer wishes to pursue their interest the home carries out an initial assessment of information and need over the phone. The prospective person is then invited to stay at the home for a two week trial period where a further Royal Garden Hotel DS0000014697.V338922.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 10 assessment is carried out to establish needs and support and the individual is able to see if they like the home. One individual spoken with at the inspection explained that they had stayed several times at the home for recuperation after illness and had stayed earlier this year to see if they wanted to move to the home permanently. They indicated that this was useful for them in making such a life changing decision and had moved in permanently only recently. Royal Garden Hotel DS0000014697.V338922.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 11 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): 7, 8, 9, & 10 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. People who use the service receive personal support in the way they prefer and require however the lack of clear written care plans do not evidence the observed support that individuals receive. Practices within the home demonstrate that people who use the service are encouraged to make decisions about their lives and to take risks as part of an independent lifestyle. However this is not always supported through the care plans and individual risk assessments for activities. EVIDENCE: The inspector sampled four care plans. The information was available in an assessment care plan which is kept in the office, an abridged version which staff have, a daily schedule of support and a daily record book where events related to individuals in the home are recorded. Royal Garden Hotel DS0000014697.V338922.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 12 The assessment care plan is divided into five areas: physical, mental abilities and needs; food drink and diet; health, hygiene and medical history; social spiritual and occupational; and medication. The records are also kept on computer and updated from the daily record book. The information contained in the assessment care plan and the abbreviated plan included information such as the following: walks unaided; varied diet small portions; encourage to drink more milk and have Fortisip daily (recommended by dietician), washes and dresses independently, needs assistance with bath. There was also information on medication needs / support and social preferences for example: has lunch daily with husband; requesting books from the library; goes out twice a day weather permitting. In the daily schedule for staff there was some evidence of support given to meet identified needs such as apply cream to spine, refill inhaler; assist to wash and dress; pour out glass of orange juice mixed with water; ‘please encourage to do as much as possible for self’. There was evidence that individuals had access to health care such as chiropody and opticians with the individual maintaining where possible contacts with services they had had prior to moving to the home. The home had written policies and procedures concerned with the management and administration of medication. The deputy manager advised that currently three staff have been trained to administer medication. The home uses a system called NOMAD where medication is dispensed into cassettes by the local pharmacist. On the day of the inspection nine people who live at the home managed their own medication and had signed to say that they had accepted that responsibility. This is reviewed as needed or when the individual no longer wishes to do this. The returned drugs book was seen and is signed by the pharmacist. There were eight gaps in the medication administration records where it was not possible to see if medication had been given or not. At the time of the inspection the home did not have a copy of the Royal Pharmaceutical Guidelines, which assists homes with managing medication. Staff were observed speaking and assisting the residents with dignity and respect. It had been seen on care plans that the preferred choice of name had been recorded and staff were heard to speak to residents by the name they wished. Royal Garden Hotel DS0000014697.V338922.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 13 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): 12, 13, 14, 15 People who use the service experience excellent quality outcomes in this area. We have made this judgement using a range of evidence, including a visit to this service. People who use the service participate in activities appropriate to their age, peer group and cultural beliefs as part of the local community. Dietary needs are well catered for with a balance and varied selection of food available that meets individual dietary requirements and choices. EVIDENCE: People who live at the home are independent in their mobility from staff support. It was noted on three of the care plans seen that individuals go out daily for walks weather permitting. The home is opposite a park which when walked across access is gained to the promenade. It was also noted that some individuals access community facilities such as hairdressing and chiropody. One individual spoken with had had their family stay for a holiday. The home also organise activities for people to join in with if they wish examples included: games, exercise classes, library book service, bingo, film shows, art classes, and concerts. One person commented: “we can please ourselves regarding attendance”. Royal Garden Hotel DS0000014697.V338922.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 14 The inspector was able to see minutes of residents meetings where they discussed with the manager and staff ideas for the home. At the recent meeting people who use the service discussed food, social activities and staff. The next meeting is August 2007 and it is hoped to have a regular meeting every three months. The home has open visiting although visitors are requested to avoid mealtimes, unless partaking of a meal with their relatives. Tea and coffer is available for visitors. All residents spoken who were able to pass comment were complimentary about the food provided. They indicated that they could have whatever they wanted if they did not like what was available. “An alternative is available if you dislike something providing you tell someone”. Breakfast cards are available for individuals to order their breakfast and again they could have whatever they wanted. The menus and records of food provided indicated that the food was nutritious and there was a wide range of meals provided with a selection of choices every day. In addition special diets and individual preferences and needs were catered for e.g. soft and pureed meals and diabetics. Residents could choose where to eat and some preferred to eat in their rooms. Food preferences, dislikes, food related allergies and nutritional and dietary requirements were recorded in residents care plans. Royal Garden Hotel DS0000014697.V338922.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 15 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): 16 & 18 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. People who use the service are protected through the open complaints process however they may be at risk due to the lack of staff knowledge and understanding of Adult protection issues. EVIDENCE: The homes complaints procedure was seen to be included in the homes statement of purpose. The information supplied by the home states that five complaints have been received in the 12 months preceding the completion of the AQAA, it was noted on the day of the inspection that records indicated that action had been taken as appropriate. The management advised that The Royal Garden Hotel promotes an open door approach to relatives and people who use the service, to help resolve complaints and issues effectively. The home had a copy of the Sussex Adult Protection procedure so that the manager and staff could refer to it when necessary. The staff brochure given to new staff on starting at the home contains the homes policy on safeguarding adults and ‘whistle blowing’, however training has lapsed since the change in management although the management advised that the deputy is to undertake training of staff. The home is also sending a representative to a meeting in July 2007 with West Sussex social services who have undertaken a review of their ‘safeguarding Adults’ policy. Royal Garden Hotel DS0000014697.V338922.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 16 Royal Garden Hotel DS0000014697.V338922.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 17 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): 19 & 26 People who use the service experience excellent quality outcomes in this area. We have made this judgement using a range of evidence, including a visit to this service. People who use the service have a pleasant and homely environment to live in which also has had adaptations to meet individual needs. EVIDENCE: The home is well maintained with an ongoing programme of refurbishment and decoration. Most areas of the home are accessible to people living at the home with the exception of the balconies where some individuals have found difficulties in using the balcony due to mobility support such as a frame. However individuals are enabled where possible to have a choice of rooms and people are able to choose size of room and facilities within those rooms. The rooms are varied with different views over the South Downs or the sea front; all are ensuite with some having a shower as well. The rooms are different sizes and range from a room with space for a lounge area and bed area, separate bedroom and lounge to two flats with a fully equipped kitchen. Royal Garden Hotel DS0000014697.V338922.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 18 All of the bedrooms were brightly decorated and had evidence of personal effects. People who live at the home are encouraged to furnish the room with personal belongings such as furniture and pictures, to make it feel like home. The dining room was refurbished and decorated in 2006 and has views over the garden area. The lounge on the top floor has views over the sea front and binoculars are available to see the view. There is also a hairdressing washbasin concealed, and each Wednesday part of the room is altered to be the hairdressing area. There is adapted bathing and shower facilities and a lift. The rooms were seen to be fitted with Yale locks, some residents have chosen to have a key to their room and use it as the ‘front door’, all rooms are lockable from the inside. The management stated that there are two master keys to be used to enter rooms in the case of an emergency. If a resident is absent for a period of time then the rooms are locked. There is adapted bathing and shower facilities and a lift. Comments from residents about the condition of the premises included: ‘I find the amenities good and the staff are very helpful’. ‘There is a beautiful lounge overlooking the sea and a most welcome lift to all floors’. The home’s laundry was appropriately sited and equipped and effective procedures were in place for the management of laundry items. The home manages all the laundry with dedicated staff. There was no was no malodour in the home and it was seen to be clean and tidy. Royal Garden Hotel DS0000014697.V338922.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 19 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): 27, 28, 29 & 30 People who use the service experience poor quality outcomes in this area. We have made this judgement using a range of evidence, including a visit to this service. People who use the services have their needs met by staff who are supportive and sufficient in numbers however, the lack of up to date training places them at risk. People who use the services are not currently protected by a robust recruitment procedure. EVIDENCE: The staffing structure provides a broad spread of experience: manager, deputy care staff, kitchen staff, laundry, housekeeping and handyman. Other health care professionals support the team from outside the home as needed. The deputy explained that there are four staff on duty throughout the day who are supported by the manager and one of the directors of the home. At night there are two staff. New staff are given an information pack which contains copies of the homes policies on: health and safety; fire; managing aggression and food safety. The inspector sampled four staff files of new individuals recruited since the last inspection in December 2005. It was noted that for two staff there was no CRB or POVA first check and for one of these only one reference. The management explained that they thought that previous CRB checks could be used and that Royal Garden Hotel DS0000014697.V338922.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 20 staff were not working unsupervised. The management was unaware of the POVA first check and stated that they had interpreted the information about checks incorrectly. It was also stated that the missing reference had been sent for but had been delayed by the referee as it had been sent to the ‘head office personnel’ for a response. The previous manger left the home in September 2006, a new manager was appointed who was the deputy at the home, who had been there two weeks when the registered manager left. Another deputy manager was appointed in January 2007. Training records were seen and it was noted that the last training in mandatory areas such as first aid and manual handling took place in January 2006. The management stated that negotiations are currently taking place with two training companies and it was hoped that this would be secured shortly. Comments received in questionnaires supported this: “I would like the staff to have more knowledge who could then give reassurance”. Royal Garden Hotel DS0000014697.V338922.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): 31, 33, 35 and 38 People who use the service experience poor quality outcomes in this area. We have made this judgement using a range of evidence, including a visit to this service. People who use the service do not always benefit from a well run home due to the lack of training for staff and a lack of robust checks in the recruitment process, these areas of management must improve. EVIDENCE: The manger at the home has been in post since September 2006, having been promoted on the retirement of the registered manger. Their background is in Hotel and Catering management however the manager has begun the Registered Managers Award and is supported by a deputy who has 14 years of experience in working in the care sector and has achieved the NVQ 4 in care. The management said at the inspection that they intend to review the systems and records currently being used at the home in consideration of the new management team and method of working. Royal Garden Hotel DS0000014697.V338922.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 22 There were a range of written policies and procedures available for staff to refer to as guidance and to inform their practice. These included the following: • General Social Care Council Code of Conduct • Residents charter • Aims and objectives • Health & safety – basic • Health and safety at work • Accident procedure • Missing persons • Ault abuse and harassment • Equal opportunities • Manual handling • Residents death • Food safety • Food and diabetes • Infectious diseases • In case of fire • Security check for night staff • In event of intruder The people who use the service and their relatives or representatives and the staff, are able to discus all aspects of the running of the home generally or on a personal level. This opportunity is offered in resident, relative and staff meetings. The home does not manage any money on behalf on the people that live there. It was noted from information received from the home in the AQAA, that the home’s equipment, plant and systems were checked and serviced or implemented at appropriate intervals i.e. passenger lift and hoists; fire safety equipment portable electrical equipment and hot water system. Records were kept of accidents. It was noted that West Sussex Fire Service had visited the home in January 2007 and had noted that the risk assessment, fire precautions and maintenance of equipment was satisfactory. On the day of the inspection the records were seen and found to be still satisfactory. However staff training in fire awareness, equipment and evacuation has not taken place since August 2006. The management stated that new staff had received instruction on the homes policy when they began work, however this instruction was given by a member of staff, who had not received training them self since last year. Royal Garden Hotel DS0000014697.V338922.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 23 Royal Garden Hotel DS0000014697.V338922.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 4 X 3 X X N/A 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 4 13 4 14 4 15 4 COMPLAINTS AND PROTECTION Standard No Score 16 3 17 X 18 2 4 X X X X X X 4 STAFFING Standard No Score 27 3 28 2 29 1 30 1 MANAGEMENT AND ADMINISTRATION Standard No 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 Score 2 X 3 X 3 X X 1 Royal Garden Hotel DS0000014697.V338922.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 Standard OP18 Regulation 13 (6) Requirement All staff must receive training in safeguarding adults to ensure that people who use the service are protected. All checks must be carried out when recruiting staff, to ensure that people who use the service are protected. All staff must receive training to ensure that are able to safely meet the needs of people who use the service. All staff must receive training in fire safety to ensure that people who use the service are protected. Timescale for action 12/09/07 2 OP29 19 Sch 2 10/07/07 3 OP30 18(c) (1) 12/09/07 4 OP38 23 (4) (d) 12/09/07 RECOMMENDATIONS These recommendations relate to National Minimum Standards and are seen as good practice for the Registered Provider/s to consider carrying out. No. Refer to Standard Good Practice Recommendations Royal Garden Hotel DS0000014697.V338922.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 26 Commission for Social Care Inspection Hampshire Office 4th Floor Overline House Blechynden Terrace Southampton SO15 1GW 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 Royal Garden Hotel DS0000014697.V338922.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!