Inspection on 16/10/06 for Russell Churcher Court

This inspection was carried out on 16th October 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 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

Russell Churcher Court 29/11/05

Russell Churcher Court 05/07/05

Russell Churcher Court 05/10/04

Russell Churcher Court 27/04/04

Similar services:

Flint House

St Vincents

The Cotswold Home

Fairways

Newbeech House

Winton House

Treloar College

Rush Court

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

CARE HOMES FOR OLDER PEOPLE Russell Churcher Court Thorngate Almhouse Trust Melrose Gardens Gosport Hampshire PO12 3BE Lead Inspector Nick Morrison Unannounced Inspection 16th October 2006 09:30 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 Russell Churcher Court DS0000012240.V316516.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. Russell Churcher Court DS0000012240.V316516.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 3 SERVICE INFORMATION Name of service Russell Churcher Court Address Thorngate Almhouse Trust Melrose Gardens Gosport Hampshire PO12 3BE 023 9252 7600 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) Thorngate Almshouse Trust Mr Melvyn Richard Howard Mr Melvyn Richard Howard Care Home 35 Category(ies) of Dementia - over 65 years of age (35), Old age, registration, with number not falling within any other category (35), of places Physical disability over 65 years of age (35) Russell Churcher Court DS0000012240.V316516.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 4 SERVICE INFORMATION Conditions of registration: Date of last inspection 29th November 2005 Brief Description of the Service: Russell Churcher Court is a purpose built care home providing personal care for up to thirty-five residents over the age of 65. The home is able to provide care for those suffering from dementia type illnesses and physical disabilities as well as those suffering from the general conditions of old age. The home is situated within a complex of sheltered housing managed by Thorngate Almshouse Trust, which are also the registered providers of Russell Churcher Court. The home has easy access to local facilities with several of the service users being able to access the community independently. Russell Churcher Court DS0000012240.V316516.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 5 SUMMARY This is an overview of what the inspector found during the inspection. This was an unannounced inspection on 16th October 2006 and lasted six hours during which time the Inspector toured the premises, looked at a sample of six service users’ files and met with three of those people. All records and relevant documentation referred to in the report was seen on the day of inspection. The Inspector spoke with a sample of staff and other service users. What the service does well: 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. Russell Churcher Court DS0000012240.V316516.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 6 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 Russell Churcher Court DS0000012240.V316516.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 7 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): Quality in this outcome area is good. This judgement has been made using available evidence including a visit to this service. Service users benefit from having their needs assessed prior to admission. The home does not provide intermediate care. EVIDENCE: Service users’ files showed that each service user had had an assessment of need undertaken prior to admission to the home. The assessments were completed with the service user and their family or representative where possible and were used to inform the service user’s care plan. All service users are able to have a trial period at the home before finally deciding to move in. The home does not provide Intermediate Care. Russell Churcher Court DS0000012240.V316516.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 8 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): Quality in this outcome area is good. This judgement has been made using available evidence including a visit to this service. Service users benefit from being treated with respect and having their right to privacy upheld. They benefit from having their needs identified in a written plan and from having their healthcare needs met. Service users are protected by the home’s medication policies and practices. EVIDENCE: Each service user had a care plan in place and those spoken with confirmed they had been involved in devising the plan. The care planning system was comprehensive and covered a full range of need areas. Records showed that care plans were reviewed on a monthly basis. There was a key working system in operation in the home and keyworkers were responsible for care plans. The care plans were checked on a monthly basis by senior staff. Russell Churcher Court DS0000012240.V316516.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 9 Correspondence in service user files demonstrated they were supported to access relevant healthcare services as necessary. Files showed that their healthcare needs were regularly assessed and monitored. Records were kept of all medical appointments and there was a system in place for ensuring that needs were continually monitored and that healthcare appointments were kept. Service users spoken with were confident that staff in the home monitored their healthcare needs effectively and that appointments were made where necessary. Good, clear records were kept of service users’ healthcare needs. The medication system in the home was well managed. Clear records were kept of all medication coming into and going out of the home as well as all medication received by service users. Staff involved in administering medication had received training and all medication was stored appropriately. Staff spoken with demonstrated a good understanding of medication issues. Service users spoken with said they felt that staff were competent in administering their medication. There was a Medication Policy in place and staff spoken with were clear about their responsibilities. Two members of staff were involved in administering each item of medication and both checked that the medication to be administered was correct before giving it to service users. Service users who were able to mange their own medication were supported to do so and had facilities in their rooms to lock away their medication. One member of staff spoken with said there had no been no medication errors in the fourteen years she had worked in the home. Staff spoken with were clear about how they maintain the privacy and dignity of service users and staff observed on the day of inspection demonstrated an ability to interact with service users in a supportive and sympathetic manner. Service users spoken with said staff treated them with respect and felt that they had sufficient privacy when they needed it. Russell Churcher Court DS0000012240.V316516.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 10 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): Quality in this outcome area is good. This judgement has been made using available evidence including a visit to this service. Service users benefit from a good diet, support to maintain contact with their families and friends and from being able to exercise as much control as possible over their own lives. Service users also benefit from having activities appropriate to their needs. EVIDENCE: The home has a planned programme of activities available to service users. Service users could choose whether or not to be involved in activities and staff were clear that some people did not want to join-in with group activities. The kinds of activities on offer in the home were skittles, quizzes, word games, bingo, armchair exercises and knitting. Singers and other entertainers were regularly booked to appear at the home. A plan of activities was made available to all service users and these showed that a range of activities was available each day. Some service users were supported to do some cooking by the Chef. Service users were also supported to go out on trips in the mini-bus. Russell Churcher Court DS0000012240.V316516.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 11 These included shopping trips, visiting gardens and the beach and going to pantomimes. Service users have visitors and said that staff always make them feel welcome and are helpful but also acknowledged the need for privacy when people are visiting. There was a visitors’ policy in place that encouraged families and friends to come at any reasonable time during the day. Staff observed on the day of the inspection visit were able to demonstrate an understanding of the need for service users to make choices and remain in control of their lives as far as possible. All service users spoken with felt that they had as much control as possible over their own lives and that there were no undue restrictions placed upon them. The dietary needs and preferences of each service user were assessed and recorded on admission. The Chef also met with each new service to determine what kinds of foods they particularly liked. Menus demonstrated that that there was a wide variety of food on offer for service users. The kitchen offered different themes for food from time to time and worked imaginatively to help service users try new and different kinds of food. Most of the food was made from scratch rather than using prepared meals and fresh ingredients were used as far as possible. Food was provided in good-sized portions and ‘seconds’ were always available. The Chef took time to talk to service users each day about the food and what their views on it were. There were also occasional questionnaires. Food was available throughout the day and all care staff had received Food Hygiene training so that they could access the kitchen at any time throughout the day and night to get food for service users if necessary. All service users spoken with were very complimentary about the food. One service user said, “It is like they are cooking just for me rather than for thirtyfive people.” Russell Churcher Court DS0000012240.V316516.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 12 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): Quality in this outcome area is good. This judgement has been made using available evidence including a visit to this service. Service users benefit from having clear information on how to complain and are protected by the home’s adult protection policies and practices. EVIDENCE: The home had an adequate Complaints Procedure in place that was made available to all service users and their families on admission. Copies of the policy were also placed around the building on notice boards. A clear procedure was in place for recording and responding to complaints. Service users said that staff always seemed to deal with issues before they needed to become complaints. The home had received no complaints in the last two years. Staff were aware of issues of abuse and how to respond to them, although there had been none in the home. The home has a copy of the local procedure for dealing with suspected abuse and this is complimented by in-house policies to protect service users. Staff spoken with were aware of these and understood them. Training in responding to issues of suspected abuse had been received by all staff. Russell Churcher Court DS0000012240.V316516.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 13 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): Quality in this outcome area is good. This judgement has been made using available evidence including a visit to this service. Service users benefit from living in a safe, well-maintained and clean home. EVIDENCE: The home was suitable for its purpose and kept good, clear records of routine maintenance were kept, which demonstrated that this was planned and monitored. All areas of the home, including the garden areas, were kept safe and secure. A cleaning schedule was in place and the home employed three people from Monday to Friday specifically for cleaning. The home was kept very clean while still managing to appear comfortable and homely. Russell Churcher Court DS0000012240.V316516.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 14 Procedures were in place for maintaining hygiene and prevent the spread of infection. Staff spoken with were clear about these. Each member of staff also had their own bacterial hand wash which they could keep with them at all times to ensure their hands were always clean. The laundry area was wellmanaged and hygienic. Service users spoken with were happy with the standard of cleanliness in the home and some had chosen the home on the basis that it had a comfortable rather than clinical ambiance. Russell Churcher Court DS0000012240.V316516.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 15 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): Quality in this outcome area is good. This judgement has been made using available evidence including a visit to this service. Service users are protected by the home’s recruitment policies and practices and benefit from having sufficient, well-trained staff available throughout the day and night. EVIDENCE: A clear rota was in place that showed that staffing levels were maintained according to the needs of service users. Staff spoken with confirmed that staffing levels were maintained according to the rota. There were six carers on duty each morning, five in the afternoon and three at night. Cleaning and kitchen staff were separate from this. Service users spoken with said there were always enough staff available. The home had decreased the amount of agency staff used. All agency staff working in the home had relevant checks in place before beginning to work there. Staff files contained recruitment records that demonstrated the recruitment procedure had been followed and that all relevant checks were made on staff before they began working in the home. Russell Churcher Court DS0000012240.V316516.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 16 Service users spoken with felt that the staff in the home were competent and that they were supported safely and in a very caring manner. Good training records and plans were kept in the home. All staff had induction training, followed by health and safety training and then training specific to the needs of service users. All staff were encouraged and supported to undertake NVQ training. Russell Churcher Court DS0000012240.V316516.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 17 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): Quality in this outcome area is good. This judgement has been made using available evidence including a visit to this service. Service users benefit from a well run home and have their financial interests safeguarded. Their health and safety is safeguarded and their views about the home are listened to and responded to. EVIDENCE: The manager is registered and has demonstrated that he has the skills, experience and qualifications to manage the home. All staff and service users spoken with spoke highly of the manager. Service users said he always came to see them and was always available if they needed to talk to him. Russell Churcher Court DS0000012240.V316516.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 18 The home does not manage the finances of service users. They are involved in looking after small amounts of money for some service users and their families oversee this. All money kept for service users was kept individually and was locked away safely and access was restricted. Records and receipts were kept of all expenditure and those seen on the day of the inspection visit matched exactly with the amount of money the home had for each service user. The home has a range of quality assurance measures in place. Questionnaires for service users were initiated on a regular basis and dealt with specific areas of the care and facilities within the home. Information from these was discussed in management meetings and included in future plans for the service. Service users had been asked if they wanted to have a committee in place at the home, but had declined. All service users spoken with felt that they were consulted and that the service was responsive to any suggestions they made. They said that staff were approachable and they could always discuss any issues with them. Families were also included in the consultation process. All staff had up-to-date training in Health and Safety issues and the Manager ensured that environment was safe for all staff, service users and visitors. Risk assessments were in place where potential risks had been highlighted and these were monitored and regularly reviewed. All equipment was regularly serviced and good records were kept. All accidents were recorded appropriately. Russell Churcher Court DS0000012240.V316516.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 19 SCORING OF OUTCOMES This page summarises the assessment of the extent to which the National Minimum Standards for Care Homes for Older People have been met and uses the following scale. The scale ranges from: 4 Standard Exceeded 2 Standard Almost Met (Commendable) (Minor Shortfalls) 3 Standard Met 1 Standard Not Met (No Shortfalls) (Major Shortfalls) “X” in the standard met box denotes standard not assessed on this occasion “N/A” in the standard met box denotes standard not applicable CHOICE OF HOME Standard No Score 1 2 3 4 5 6 ENVIRONMENT Standard No Score 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 X X 3 X X 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 3 13 3 14 3 15 3 COMPLAINTS AND PROTECTION Standard No Score 16 3 17 X 18 3 3 X X X X X X 3 STAFFING Standard No Score 27 3 28 3 29 3 30 3 MANAGEMENT AND ADMINISTRATION Standard No 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 Score 3 X 3 X 3 X X 3 Russell Churcher Court DS0000012240.V316516.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 20 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. Standard Regulation Requirement Timescale for action 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 Russell Churcher Court DS0000012240.V316516.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 21 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 Text phone: 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 Russell Churcher Court DS0000012240.V316516.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 22 - 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!