Inspection on 06/02/06 for Ruskin Mill College

This inspection was carried out on 6th February 2006.

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 5 statutory requirements (actions the home must comply with) as a result of this inspection.

Other inspections for this house

Ruskin Mill College 16/10/06

Ruskin Mill College 30/11/05

Ruskin Mill College 04/03/05

Ruskin Mill College 21/06/04

Similar services:

2 Perhaver Park

The Vicarage

St George`s

5 Seafield Road

Credence House

Radfords

Honeybourne House

32 Beaumont Way

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

CARE HOME ADULTS 18-65 Ruskin Mill College Old Bristol Road Nailsworth Glos GL6 0LA Lead Inspector Mr Simon Massey Announced Inspection 6th February 2006 09:00 Ruskin Mill College DS0000043202.V281749.R01.S.doc Version 5.1 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 Ruskin Mill College DS0000043202.V281749.R01.S.doc Version 5.1 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. Ruskin Mill College DS0000043202.V281749.R01.S.doc Version 5.1 Page 3 SERVICE INFORMATION Name of service Ruskin Mill College Address Old Bristol Road Nailsworth Glos GL6 0LA 01453 837528 01453 837506 richard.rogers@ruskin-mill.org.uk 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) Ruskin Mill Educational Trust Mr Richard William Rogers Care Home 90 Category(ies) of Learning disability (90), Mental disorder, registration, with number excluding learning disability or dementia (90) of places Ruskin Mill College DS0000043202.V281749.R01.S.doc Version 5.1 Page 4 SERVICE INFORMATION Conditions of registration: 1. The Registration of Ruskin Mill College will only cover accommodation of service users in the houses listed in Appendix A 4th March 2005 Date of last inspection Brief Description of the Service: Ruskin Mill Educational Trust (RMET) is a charitable trust founded in1987 which runs Ruskin Mill College. The College is a residential college for people with special needs and provides placements for the age range of 16 to 25 years. Following discussions between RMET and the National Care Standards Commission (NCSC) the College has been registered as a Care Home and was inspected with reference to the National Minimum Standards for Younger Adults, including the Supplementary Standards for care homes accommodating young people aged 16 and 17. The College provides accommodation for students in 42 different locations, which break down into three different types. Firstly there are staffed homes, which are either rented or owned by the College, secondly there are independent flats, which are supervised by care staff and finally there are home providers. This last group comprises people who are contracted by the college to provide care and support their own homes. Students are provided with a full weekly timetable of activities at the College, which provides a diverse range of educational, vocational and therapeutic activities. The registered manager is based at the college and supervises four Neighbourhood Heads, who are in turn responsible for the supervision of a group of homes in one particular geographical area. The four areas can generally be described as Nailsworth, Stroud, Minchinhampton and Stonehouse. Ruskin Mill College DS0000043202.V281749.R01.S.doc Version 5.1 Page 5 SUMMARY This is an overview of what the inspector found during the inspection. This inspection was undertaken by two inspectors, Simon Massey and Paul Chapman, over three days from 6th to the 8th February 2006. An additional visit to follow up certain issues was undertaken on 9th February. An inspection plan was devised and followed in co-operation with the College. The inspectors were based in the College but also visited six of the houses over three evenings. The inspector met formally with the Registered Manager, the Neighbourhood Heads (who directly supervise the houseparents), the College nurse, a group of eight houseparents, a group of four third year students, a group of four residential support workers and a group of students in a “transition” group that helps students prepare for leaving the College. The inspectors also met with the Residential Support Co-ordinator, the head of College personnel and the College doctor. The inspectors also observed and participated in a workshop activity for approximately two hours with two groups of students. In addition the inspectors met a variety of students during the communal lunch break at the College and at various other times and locations around the College. Also the inspectors interviewed the students and houseparents living in the six houses visited in the evening. On the first morning of the inspection the College provided the recording from twenty of the houses for the inspectors to examine. This included records of care planning, medication, risk assessments, daily journals and incident reports. Records were also examined in relation to staff recruitment and training. The inspectors are grateful for the help and co-operation given in planning this inspection and for the practical assistance received whilst on site. The inspectors are also appreciative of the open and positive approach to the inspection from the college staff who participated in the process. What the service does well: The College has houseparents who are committed to providing a high standard of care and support. People also are committed to the development of the service and the aims and objectives of the College. Ruskin Mill College DS0000043202.V281749.R01.S.doc Version 5.1 Page 6 Houseparents and their managers are able to demonstrate a professional understanding and insight into the needs of the students. The College completes detailed assessments on students prior to their admission. The College provides a high standard of input and service to the students in terms of education, advice and support in the area of personal relationships and sex education. The College has a range of residential provision that can suit a variety of individual needs. Students receive good levels of guidance and support, coupled with good risk assessments, to develop their independent travel skills. Students enjoy a variety of opportunities to develop their social and leisure interests. Students are provided with good opportunities to develop and practice independent living skills. The care and support provided in the houses provide a strong foundation upon which students can build on, to make the most of their time at the College. What has improved since the last inspection? What they could do better: The college needs to ensure that all staff receive the required statutory training in fire safety, first aid and food and hygiene. The records in some of the houses need to be scrutinised more regularly to ensure greater consistency. There needs to be greater consistency in the use of care plans, daily journals and diaries within the houses. More clarification and agreement could be found between houseparents, Neighbourhood Heads and the Registered Manager over the frequency, content and role of structured formal supervision for houseparents. Ruskin Mill College DS0000043202.V281749.R01.S.doc Version 5.1 Page 7 House parents should have an acceptable grasp of English before taking responsibility for students. 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. Ruskin Mill College DS0000043202.V281749.R01.S.doc Version 5.1 Page 8 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 Ruskin Mill College DS0000043202.V281749.R01.S.doc Version 5.1 Page 9 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 at least once during a 12 month period. JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for the following standard(s): 1,2 & 4 Prospective students are supplied with sufficient information to make an informed choice about applying for a placement. The assessment process ensures that detailed and appropriate information about individual needs is collected. EVIDENCE: Assessments are completed and information gathered on all students who apply for a place at the College. Various examples of these were examined and seen to be detailed and containing the required information. Potential students are invited for a trial three day assessment visit, where a further assessment is undertaken by the houseparents responsible for the accommodation where the student is placed. A sample of these were seen, and the house where they were completed visited. The houseparent explained the process that was followed, and the final written reports provided insightful information relating to a range of issues from practical skills through to the student’s attitude towards further education. The assessments cover speech and language, personal hygiene, road safety and appropriate public behaviour. Students interviewed confirmed that the assessment and admission process had been a positive experience and that they had been fully informed of what the college offered, and what was expected of students. Ruskin Mill College DS0000043202.V281749.R01.S.doc Version 5.1 Page 10 Students were aware of the particular features of the College accommodation, such as organic food, rules over bedtimes, sharing with other students and the role of the houseparents. Ruskin Mill College DS0000043202.V281749.R01.S.doc Version 5.1 Page 11 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 at least once during a 12 month period. JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for the following standard(s): 6,7 , 9 & 10 Improvements have been made in the content and quality of care plans within the houses but some inconsistency in this is still evident. Students are involved in the planning and reviewing, though some of this involvement could be better documented. Risk assessing is being utilised to increase independence and confidence in the students. Students are confident that confidentiality is protected and their privacy is protected. EVIDENCE: All the student files seen contained a range of information about the care and support required, individual targets and strategies and monitoring of the progress made. Students have an Individual Learning Plan, which provides the opportunity for weekly recoding against objectives and also another more general care plan that is completed by the houseparents. These care plans should be reviewed on a termly basis. Ruskin Mill College DS0000043202.V281749.R01.S.doc Version 5.1 Page 12 The general standard of recording is greatly improved and the standardised format provided for all houses is helpful to this process. The files from Yewdales, Rockleigh, 26 Lansdowne, Rose Lawn and Bridgend East were all of an excellent standard. These were well organised, with information being easily accessible, and containing examples of clear recording of progress against agreed objectives. These also contained examples of situations and behaviour being reflected upon, and of good communication with outside professionals, as well as within the College. There was some inconsistency in the paperwork examined. Some of the files were disorganised with paperwork in the wrong sections, entries not dated or signed, and two personal files where all the paperwork was kept loosely in the folders. Not all the ILP’s had the weekly recording completed and the care plans in some files were either incomplete or lacking in detail. It was evident from discussion with houseparents that there were some differences in the understanding of the relevance of the care plans and the process to be followed in completing them. There was also inconsistency in the frequency that these records were being checked and scrutinised by the Neighbourhood Heads. Some of the daily recording has been completed in the first person and is then read by the student, or is read back by the houseparent. This is a good example of a person centred approach. The houseparent commented that they found this to be useful way of building dialogue with students, as well as ensuring they remain accountable for the records about an individual. A recommendation is made that when a student has read daily notes, or a revised care plan, that this should be recorded with a signature. On a care plan this should also indicate the degree of involvement the student has had in reviewing or revising the plan. Two of the targets recorded in the weekly boxes on the ILP forms were only relevant to the College setting and there was some evidence that some were set without the involvement of the students. As with the care plans a recommendation is made that the targets contained in the ILP forms should provide a record of the student involvement in their development. Staff are provided with a booklet that gives guidance on the completion of the ILPs but further supervision and guidance is required from the Neighbourhood Heads to ensure this is being done consistently across all the households. Four of the house file examined had no daily journals or diaries in place and two had no ILPs in place. Students interviewed said they were aware of the records that were kept on them in the houses and those who expressed an interest, said they were able to see the files if they wished. All students questioned felt that their confidentiality was respected. The storage facilities seen in the house inspected were satisfactory. Ruskin Mill College DS0000043202.V281749.R01.S.doc Version 5.1 Page 13 Ruskin Mill College DS0000043202.V281749.R01.S.doc Version 5.1 Page 14 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 at least once during a 12 month period. JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for the following standard(s): 11,12,13,14,15&17 Personal development is a key aspect of the care planning in place and an intended outcome of all activities undertaken. A diverse and challenging range of activities are supported and organised by the College. The location of the houses, the risk assessing of independent travel and the participation in local activities provided opportunities for involvement in the local community. Students are provided with excellent support and information to develop their understanding of personal relationships. The provision of healthy organic food and the communal mealtime is a feature of the College provision that is valued by the students. EVIDENCE: Ruskin Mill College DS0000043202.V281749.R01.S.doc Version 5.1 Page 15 The files personal files contain information about hobbies and interests that students participate in. In two houses visited there was evidence that the staff structure and plan activities with the involvement of the students. A wide range of examples were provided by students of evening and weekend activities that they participate in. These included rock climbing, dance classes, bowling, cinema trips, shopping excursions, walking and camping trips, visits to other houses within the College, concerts and educational visits. Several students were spoken to who have recently been on trips abroad as part of the College curriculum. House parents had also participated on these trips. These trips provide benefits in terms of personal development as well as the educational value. All students spoken to expressed satisfaction with this aspect of the care provided. Students are provided with advice and support in the area of personal relationships. Recording in the files showed houseparents liaising with parents, personal tutors and the college nurse over issues around relationships, sex education and vulnerability. Relationship training or counselling can be provided for students, either singularly or for couples. This service is provided by the College accessing an external counsellor. A record of sessions is kept and feedback provided to the College nurse. The information stored complies with the confidentiality policy agreed by students when they begin at the College. Houseparents also run a “women’s group” that meets in the evenings, and two students who attend this stated they found it an important part of their routine. Several personal files contained information about advice given to students in relation to diets and health. Some female students have been supported to attend a weight watchers class. Four students were interviewed who currently live in the “independence training” accommodation provided by the college. They gave examples of how they have moved towards this level of independence, and how it will help them to progress when they leave the college. All stated they received sufficient support and input. Students gave examples of qualifications they had achieved, and two students also described the benefits of the work experience that had been accessed whilst at the College. The students stated they were satisfied with the social and leisure activities they pursued but all commented how this was always better when you lived in a house that had more access to other households connected with the College. The support staff for the independent accommodation were not interviewed during this visit, nor was the recording or documentation associated with this provision examined Ruskin Mill College DS0000043202.V281749.R01.S.doc Version 5.1 Page 16 In the houses visited, the students have clear responsibilities for a range of household chores and these were clearly listed and understood. Students questioned felt the rules were fair and also said they were aware of the type of rules and expectations that were in place in the houses before they came to the College. The inspectors joined students and staff each day for lunch and dinner. Lunch is provided at the College each day and the meals that the inspectors partook were wholesome, nutritious and of excellent quality. The evening meals at the homes visited appeared on the whole to be led by what students wished to eat. At Upper Grange the inspector witnessed a student stating that “they wished to eat meat and that they did not want to be vegetarian”. The house parents said that they had agreed to eat vegetarian meals on a number of evenings each week. The inspector was concerned that the student clearly stated that she was unhappy with this arrangement and this practice should be reviewed and the student’s wishes respected. Both of the inspectors spent part of a morning completing activities with groups of the students at the college. These activities were a Woodwork session and a Coppicing activity. This provided the inspectors with an insight into activities provided by the college and enabled them to spend time with students as they went about their typical day at the college. Ruskin Mill College DS0000043202.V281749.R01.S.doc Version 5.1 Page 17 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 at least once during a 12 month period. JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for the following standard(s): 19 & 20 Student’s physical and emotional health needs are monitored and input and support provided when necessary. The homes have appropriate systems for administering and storing of medication EVIDENCE: The medication records were seen from twenty of the houses, and also the storage facilities in the six houses visited. With the exception of two medication charts, which were completed with ticks instead of signatures, these were seen as in order and meeting the standard. A new procedure and format has been devised to assess the ability to self medicate. This provides guidance to staff on how to complete the assessment. A copy of this has been supplied to the Commission. The personal files contain details of all medication and homely remedies that are administered. A recommendation is made that all care plans should indicate the health needs that are met at the student’s home and the ones that are the responsibility of Ruskin Mill College DS0000043202.V281749.R01.S.doc Version 5.1 Page 18 the houseparents and College to meet. This information was contained on some plans but not all. Ruskin Mill College DS0000043202.V281749.R01.S.doc Version 5.1 Page 19 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 at least once during a 12 month period. JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for the following standard(s): 22&23 Students are provided with information and opportunities to express their concerns and views about their care, support and education. Training of staff, College policies and procedures and the positive relationships with staff promote the protection the students. EVIDENCE: Some student files contain behavioural management plans and guidance for staff on how to respond and deal with certain situations or behaviours. Those examined were detailed and provided clear advice to staff on how to manage different strategies. Care staff interviewed demonstrated a professional understanding of the issues around managing challenging behaviours, and all interviewed had undertaken some form of training in this area. Students interviewed gave examples of how the staff had dealt with aggressive or difficult behaviours. They described how staff did not overreact, but remained calm. One third year student stated they had had difficulty settling into college initially, which had resulted in occasional confrontations with other students and staff. They said that they thought they had been treated fairly and that “talking things through later with everyone helped me see things differently.” Several students were asked directly about the issue of bullying and whether it had ever been an issue for them or their friends whilst at the college. None said that it had been but examples were given when certain students have appeared to “pick on others,” and this had been dealt with by the staff. All students questioned said they felt comfortable and safe in the college and in the houses. Care Staff commented that the college had done some good work Ruskin Mill College DS0000043202.V281749.R01.S.doc Version 5.1 Page 20 in this area and nobody identified this as a current problem or issue. Two staff commented that sometimes the effect of louder and more confident students on other more quiet and insecure students can sometimes go unnoticed. One example of this was the internal transport between the different sites. Staff also gave examples of students being moved to different households in order to prevent conflict and promote better relationships. Several examples were seen of students discussing concerns with houseparents or college staff, and all students interviewed were able to explain who they would take their complaints or concerns to when they arise. Students gave examples of issues they had raised, such as transport, college routines, participation in outside activities and problems at home. It was observed by the inspectors that there was an increased understanding amongst some students spoken to about the role and objectives of inspection by the Commission, particularly amongst the third year students. This is a positive development, which helps the inspection process and contributes to the measures taken by the College to ensure students are protected. Comment is made in the summary of the report to the sampling nature of parts of the inspection and student awareness of the role of inspection could help offset some of these concerns The college has produced a new policy on Student Protection and a draft copy was supplied to the Inspectors. The policies cover a variety of areas including anti-bullying, whistle blowing, discipline and sanctions, incident and occurrence reporting and sexual health. Ruskin Mill College DS0000043202.V281749.R01.S.doc Version 5.1 Page 21 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 at least once during a 12 month period. JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for the following standard(s): These standards were not inspected in detail during this visit. EVIDENCE: Six houses were visited during this inspection, The Yewdales, Rockeigh, The Gables, Upper Grange, High Trees and 25, Slad Road. No issues concerning the environment were identified concerning this accommodation and the sample of inspected during this visit met the required outcomes of these standards. The houses appeared clean, homely and well maintained, although The Gables continues to be in the process of some renovation work. A number of service user rooms were seen and these appeared personalised and appropriate to the needs of the occupants. Students expressed satisfaction with the quality of the accommodation. The College has supplied to the Commission a termly updated list of the accommodation and the location of the individual students. With the exception of the following all have been visited by the Inspectors during the past eighteen months; Frost Cottage, Pine Cottage, The Old Manse, The Old Rectory Flat, Harley Wood, Fountain Street and Summer Street. The houses visited had appropriate storage facilities for medication and for student records. Ruskin Mill College DS0000043202.V281749.R01.S.doc Version 5.1 Page 22 Ruskin Mill College DS0000043202.V281749.R01.S.doc Version 5.1 Page 23 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 at least once during a 12 month period. JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for the following standard(s): 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 & 36 The development of the students is promoted by the knowledge and professionalism of the houseparents. The commitment of the houseparents to understanding the needs of the students helps promote and develop awareness of their roles. The provision of professional and flexible support/relief staff promotes consistency of care and support. Inconsistency in the completion of statutory training and the training provided in the managing of challenging behaviours by new houseparents could compromise the safety of the students. Clarification and agreement over the format, frequency and content of the supervision of houseparents between the Registered Manager, the Neighbourhood Heads and the Houseparents themselves would further improve the care and support delivered. EVIDENCE: A group of six houseparents were interviewed at the College and a further six were spoken to when the inspector visited Yewdales, Rockleigh, The Gables Farmhouse and 25 Slad Rd. Ruskin Mill College DS0000043202.V281749.R01.S.doc Version 5.1 Page 24 The inspectors also interviewed a group of four support workers. The support workers provide cover for the houses when weekends off are taken, and also additional support on request from the individual homes. This is coordinated through the College. Houseparents stated that requests for extra cover or support had always been agreed. People were positive about the quality of support provided and felt confident about handing over responsibility for the house for a weekend or evening. The support workers were able to demonstrate a professional understanding of their roles and the importance of consistency when taking over a household. Support workers explained that usually they cover specific houses and that they contact or meet the house parents before they work at the home to discuss issues, or practices. After they have worked at the home they complete a feedback form, which is given to the house parent and the neighbourhood head. Support workers commented that they feel that they should be involved in the students’ reviews and that this was being proposed for the future. Some shortfalls were identified in relation to staff training. All staff are required to complete Studio Three training which covers the managing and deescalating of challenging behaviours. The records showed that nine people completed a refresher course and twenty completed the first day of this two-day course. However only 15 people completed the whole two-day course. There were also a further six people who did not complete the afternoon session on the second day. The houseparents should complete the whole course before commencing work with the students. This training needs to be done in its entirety to be of real benefit to the staff concerned. None of the newly appointed Houseparents, who stared work in September 2005, had completed any fire safety, as this was not provided by the College. No staff should be starting work in the houses without some form of basic fire safety training. A requirement has been made in respect of this. Not all of the new houseparents had completed basic first aid training, and as they are the only staff in the houses this should also be completed before commencing work. Not all staff have completed food hygiene and handling training and all staff who have a responsibility for preparing food should complete this training. No home providers were met or interviewed during this inspection but the inspectors were informed of the evening training that has been provided for this group of carers. Many of these people have full time jobs and would have difficulty attending training during the day. The staff records were sampled and seen to be in order, with all the required information in place such as CRB checks, references and employment histories. Ruskin Mill College DS0000043202.V281749.R01.S.doc Version 5.1 Page 25 The College has begun collecting details and evidence of qualifications held by staff. This should only relate to qualifications relevant to the position that staff are employed in. Four files contained police clearances obtained form the Czech Republic. The College need to take reasonable steps to ensure that some form of translation confirms that these staff do not have criminal records. All houseparents spoken to were positive about the quality of advice and support they received from the management but some criticism was made of the formal structures for receiving supervision. People commented they were aware of the pressure that neighbourhood heads were under from other parts of their role and also the need for some situations to be responded to more quickly than others. This meant that there could be a reluctance at times to add to their colleague’s workload by raising additional issues that seem less urgent. Each house is required to be visited at least twice each term by the Neighbourhood Head but not all households had received this. Some houses, including some of the new households, have received more regular weekly visits when a need has arisen. There was also some inconsistency in the formal checking of recording, environmental issues and training. A view was expressed by several houseparents that more regular meetings with Neighbourhood Heads, weekly in some circumstances, would be of benefit. It was felt that this would provide an opportunity to discuss ongoing relationships with students, issues and the general development of the household. New houseparents considered that this would have been particularly relevant to them. The Neighbourhood Heads perform a role that is a mixture of scrutiny and supervision and further reference to this role is made under the management standards. Some concerns were identified over the induction and introduction of new houseparents from abroad. Not all of the new houseparents had completed the required training and one person recruited had limited English. As previously stated, the new houseparents felt they would have benefited from weekly professional development or supervision meetings. The Gables household highlighted some of these issues. The household is run by new houseparents who have moved from abroad, this being their first time in this country. The house is relatively isolated on the outskirts of Nailsworth and the houseparents also have their own three children living with them. From visiting the home and from notifications received in respect of this house it was evident that some challenging issues were being dealt with in relation to one of the students. The inspector was impressed with the commitment and professional approach shown by the new staff and it was evident that this, coupled with the support and involvement of the neighbourhood head had ensured that the placement did not break down. Ruskin Mill College DS0000043202.V281749.R01.S.doc Version 5.1 Page 26 Ruskin Mill College DS0000043202.V281749.R01.S.doc Version 5.1 Page 27 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 at least once during a 12 month period. JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for the following standard(s): 37, 38 & 39 The houses’ are effectively managed and excellent support is provided during difficult periods. The College continues to develop and evolve and general staff awareness of these areas contributes to the progress being made. A good understanding amongst staff of the aims and objectives of the College contributes to consistency in the standard of support and care. EVIDENCE: The supervision and scrutiny of the households is primarily the responsibility of the Neighbourhood Heads, who are in turn supervised by the Registered Manager. Staff were positive about the quality and commitment of the management and people stated they felt able to approach management at any level with questions or concerns. There is evidence of an open and self-critical culture, which provides challenges to staff and also encourages problem solving. Ruskin Mill College DS0000043202.V281749.R01.S.doc Version 5.1 Page 28 Many staff interviewed commented on the extent and pace of change within the College over the past few years and people were generally well informed about developments. All houseparents interviewed demonstrated a good understanding of the aims and objectives of the College and the philosophy of care. All managers and care staff interviewed demonstrated a consistently good knowledge of the students they were in any way involved in. Ruskin Mill College DS0000043202.V281749.R01.S.doc Version 5.1 Page 29 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 3 2 3 3 X 4 3 5 x INDIVIDUAL NEEDS AND CHOICES Standard No 6 7 8 9 10 Score CONCERNS AND COMPLAINTS Standard No Score 22 3 23 3 ENVIRONMENT Standard No Score 24 X 25 X 26 X 27 X 28 X 29 X 30 x STAFFING Standard No Score 31 3 32 3 33 3 34 3 35 2 36 2 CONDUCT AND MANAGEMENT OF THE HOME Standard No 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 Score 3 3 X 3 3 LIFESTYLES Standard No Score 11 4 12 4 13 3 14 3 15 4 16 X 17 4 PERSONAL AND HEALTHCARE SUPPORT Standard No 18 19 20 21 Score X 3 3 x 3 3 3 X X X x Ruskin Mill College DS0000043202.V281749.R01.S.doc Version 5.1 Page 30 NO Are there any outstanding requirements from the last inspection? STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS This section sets out the actions, which must be taken so that the registered person/s meets the Care Standards Act 2000, Care Homes Regulations 2001 and the National Minimum Standards. The Registered Provider(s) must comply with the given timescales. No. 1 Standard YA6 Regulation 12(1)(a) Requirement Timescale for action 30/04/06 2 YA17 3 YA34 4 YA42 5 YA32 The College must ensure that records kept in the house relating to care planning and reviewing are regularly checked and scrutinised consistently across all the houses 16(2)(i) The College must review the menu planning in Upper Grange to ensure that choice is promoted and respected 19(1)(a)&(b) The College must ensure that translations of police checks obtained from abroad are provided 18(1)(c) The College must ensure that Houseparents have completed the required statutory training in first aid and fire safety before commencing work with the students 19(5)(b)&12(3)(b) The College must ensure that foreign Houseparents have sufficiently good English to be able to communicate effectively with students before they commence working in the DS0000043202.V281749.R01.S.doc 30/04/06 30/04/06 30/04/06 30/04/06 Ruskin Mill College Version 5.1 Page 31 houses RECOMMENDATIONS These recommendations relate to National Minimum Standards and are seen as good practice for the Registered Provider/s to consider carrying out. No. 1 2 3 4 5 Refer to Standard YA6 YA19 YA32 YA36 YA42 Good Practice Recommendations The College should clearly record the involvement of the student in the reviewing of their own care plans The care plans should indicate which health needs are met by the College and which are met at the student’s home New houseparents should complete the full Studio 3 training programme before working with the students The College should seek clarification and agreement over the formal supervision of houseparents. This is particularly relevant to new staff New houseparents should complete Food Handling training before working in the houses Ruskin Mill College DS0000043202.V281749.R01.S.doc Version 5.1 Page 32 Commission for Social Care Inspection Gloucester Office Unit 1210 Lansdowne Court Gloucester Business Park Brockworth Gloucester, GL3 4AB National Enquiry Line: 0845 015 0120 Email: enquiries@csci.gsi.gov.uk Web: www.csci.org.uk © This report is copyright Commission for Social Care Inspection (CSCI) and may only be used in its entirety. Extracts may not be used or reproduced without the express permission of CSCI Ruskin Mill College DS0000043202.V281749.R01.S.doc Version 5.1 Page 33 - 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!