Inspection on 07/06/06 for Seabourne House

This inspection was carried out on 7th June 2006.

CSCI has not published a star rating for this report, though using similar criteria we estimate that the report is (sorry - unknown). 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 2 statutory requirements (actions the home must comply with) as a result of this inspection.

Other inspections for this house

Seabourne House 17/02/06

Seabourne House 06/12/05

Seabourne House 28/09/04

Seabourne House 11/05/04

Seabourne House 15/01/04

Similar services:

Thorndene

Insight - Eastchurch

Southfields

Magenta

33 St John`s Church Road

Dovedale Court

Lyncol House

Greenacres

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

CARE HOME ADULTS 18-65 Seabourne House Seabourne Close Dymchurch Kent TN29 0PU Lead Inspector Geoff Senior Unannounced Inspection 7 & 8th June 2006 10:00 th Seabourne House DS0000023522.V298437.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 1 The Commission for Social Care Inspection aims to: • • • • Put the people who use social care first Improve services and stamp out bad practice Be an expert voice on social care Practise what we preach in our own organisation Reader Information Document Purpose Author Audience Further copies from Copyright Inspection Report CSCI General Public 0870 240 7535 (telephone order line) This report is copyright Commission for Social Care Inspection (CSCI) and may only be used in its entirety. Extracts may not be used or reproduced without the express permission of CSCI www.csci.org.uk Internet address Seabourne House DS0000023522.V298437.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 2 This is a report of an inspection to assess whether services are meeting the needs of people who use them. The legal basis for conducting inspections is the Care Standards Act 2000 and the relevant National Minimum Standards for this establishment are those for Care Homes for Adults 18-65. They can be found at www.dh.gov.uk or obtained from The Stationery Office (TSO) PO Box 29, St Crispins, Duke Street, Norwich, NR3 1GN. Tel: 0870 600 5522. Online ordering: www.tso.co.uk/bookshop This report is a public document. Extracts may not be used or reproduced without the prior permission of the Commission for Social Care Inspection. Seabourne House DS0000023522.V298437.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 3 SERVICE INFORMATION Name of service Seabourne House Address Seabourne Close Dymchurch Kent TN29 0PU 01303 875154 01303 875154 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) Lothlorien Community Ltd Care Home 5 Category(ies) of Learning disability (5) registration, with number of places Seabourne House DS0000023522.V298437.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 4 SERVICE INFORMATION Conditions of registration: Date of last inspection 17th February 2006 Brief Description of the Service: Seabourne House is part of the Craegmoor Health Care Group and is a residential care home registered to provide care and accommodation for up to five people who have a learning disability. The current service user group is all female as is the staff group. There is currently no registered manager in post. The day-to-day management is undertaken by Ms. McManus. Seabourne House is located in a quiet residential area of Dymchurch within walking distance of the seafront and the village centre. The house is a substantial detached property. The accommodation is arranged on two floors. All service users have their own bedrooms. Seabourne House DS0000023522.V298437.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 5 SUMMARY This is an overview of what the inspector found during the inspection. The inspection was unannounced and was undertaken on the 7th and 8th June 2006. The Acting manager was not on duty on the first day of the visit, however, In the course of the two days the inspector met and spent time with the manager, and spoke generally with all staff on duty. The level of functioning of the majority of service users limited the opportunity to discuss their experiences and opinions of the home. Those that did respond were positive and indicated that they liked the home and staff. The inspector was able to observe throughout the visit, the staff’s attention to the service users’ needs, their patient, friendly and respectful manner and their treatment of each service user as an individual. The Inspector viewed the premises and inspected a range of records; care plans, daily records, staff files and training records. On the 13thand 15th June 06 the inspector was able to speak with and note the comments of family members of two of the service users. The responses were generally positive and supportive of the service offered. They confirmed the feelings of inclusion in the planning and review process. One query was raised regarding staff levels and supervision at ‘peak times’. This is noted in the text of the report. The reported fees are £985 per week. What the service does well: The Manager and staff team appear to have established a friendly, welcoming and supportive atmosphere in the home. Staff on duty at the time of inspection carried out their tasks with enthusiasm and obvious affection for those in their care. Service users views and opinions are considered. The home enables service users to maintain appropriate links with families, friends and significant others. Comments from service users and family members include: “The atmosphere in the home is always very positive” “Staff treat the house as XX’s home and they are the visitors”, “It’s a caring environment where x is safe and happy” “no-one is patronised” Seabourne House DS0000023522.V298437.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 6 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. Seabourne House DS0000023522.V298437.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 7 DETAILS OF INSPECTOR FINDINGS CONTENTS Choice of Home (Standards 1–5) Individual Needs and Choices (Standards 6-10) Lifestyle (Standards 11-17) Personal and Healthcare Support (Standards 18-21) Concerns, Complaints and Protection (Standards 22-23) Environment (Standards 24-30) Staffing (Standards 31-36) Conduct and Management of the Home (Standards 37 – 43) Scoring of Outcomes Statutory Requirements Identified During the Inspection Seabourne House DS0000023522.V298437.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 8 Choice of Home The intended outcomes for Standards 1 – 5 are: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Prospective service users have the information they need to make an informed choice about where to live. Prospective users’ individual aspirations and needs are assessed. Prospective service users know that the home that they will choose will meet their needs and aspirations. Prospective service users have an opportunity to visit and to “test drive” the home. Each service user has an individual written contract or statement of terms and conditions with the home. The Commission consider Standard 2 the key standard to be inspected at least once during a 12 month period. JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for the following standard(s): 2 Quality in this outcome area is good. This judgement has been made using available evidence including a visit to this service Pre placement assessment, and care plan guidelines assist staff in supporting service user needs and aspirations. Staff showed a good understanding of service user support needs. Positive relationships were observed between staff and service users. EVIDENCE: The majority of the service user group have lived at Seabourne House for a number of years, the most recent admission having been approx two years ago. The company admission procedure and process allows for a protracted introduction and assessment period prior to any admission. It includes; offering opportunity for visits and overnight stays. It encourages the involvement of family and representatives in all stages. The current client group is all female, as is the staff team, and any admission is subject to a compatibility assessment. The Manager was reminded to ensure that all assessments and reviews are dated and signed. Discussion with staff, service user and specific guidelines seen on file indicate that service user needs have been identified and are being addressed. Staff indicated a good understanding of support needs. Very positive, friendly and relaxed interaction between service users and staff was observed. Seabourne House DS0000023522.V298437.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 9 Individual Needs and Choices The intended outcomes for Standards 6 – 10 are: 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. Service users know their assessed and changing needs and personal goals are reflected in their individual Plan. Service users make decisions about their lives with assistance as needed. Service users are consulted on, and participate in, all aspects of life in the home. Service users are supported to take risks as part of an independent lifestyle. Service users know that information about them is handled appropriately, and that their confidences are kept. The Commission considers Standards 6, 7 and 9 the key standards to be inspected at least once during a 12 month period. JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for the following standard(s): 6,7,9. Quality in this outcome area is good. This judgement has been made using available evidence including a visit to this service. Service user plans are clear, accessible and identify the needs of the resident group. Staff have a good understanding of resident’s rights and Service users are enabled to make decisions affecting their daily lives. Risks are assessed positively. EVIDENCE: Service user care plans contain detail on physical and social needs, health care, medical information and behavioural guidelines. Service users family and representatives are encouraged to be involved in the formulation of care plans and participate in the regular reviews. Two service users are able to verbalise opinions and are consulted whenever appropriate and possible. Other service users are non verbal but staff communicate with pictures and have a good working knowledge of their likes, dislikes and preferred routines. Service user response to any change in routine Seabourne House DS0000023522.V298437.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 10 is noted and acted upon accordingly. There is a structure to the weekdays but routines remain flexible. Decisions are made and choices determined on a daily basis. Staff interacted with the service users in a friendly and non-patronising manner and efforts were made to include them in any interactions. The management undertakes and records where potentially hazardous activities are identified or planned so that service users can participate in chosen activities with appropriate support. Any restrictions imposed need to be documented. Seabourne House DS0000023522.V298437.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 11 Lifestyle The intended outcomes for Standards 11 - 17 are: 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. Service users have opportunities for personal development. Service users are able to take part in age, peer and culturally appropriate activities. Service users are part of the local community. Service users engage in appropriate leisure activities. Service users have appropriate personal, family and sexual relationships. Service users’ rights are respected and responsibilities recognised in their daily lives. Service users are offered a healthy diet and enjoy their meals and mealtimes. The Commission considers Standards 12, 13, 15, 16 and 17 the key standards to be inspected at least once during a 12 month period. JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for the following standard(s): 12,13,15,16,17. Quality in this outcome area is adequate. This judgement has been made using available evidence including a visit to this service. Service users’ days are, for the most part, meaningfully occupied. Daily routines promote individual skills and responsibilities. Service users are involved in the choice and preparation of a varied and balanced menu. Transport arrangements need to be reviewed to ensure choice and safety are not compromised. (This was discussed at the last inspection and noted in the report.) EVIDENCE: A written programme of activity is on file. The programme includes individual, group, in house and community based activity. There is a balance of social, educational and physical activity. Daily records confirm involvement or give reason for non-implementation of the programmes. The home has use of a 5 Seabourne House DS0000023522.V298437.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 12 seater car for transporting service users to and from trips out and social venues. It is considered insufficient for the needs of the home as choice and adequate supervision levels may be compromised. Daily routines promote service users skills and responsibilities. A varied and balanced diet is offered to the service users. Monday meals are chosen, cooked and eaten as part of the day care programme. S U’s are involved in choice and prep of all meals. Varied menu offers choice and considers health care needs. Seabourne House DS0000023522.V298437.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 13 Personal and Healthcare Support The intended outcomes for Standards 18 - 21 are: 18. 19. 20. 21. Service users receive personal support in the way they prefer and require. Service users’ physical and emotional health needs are met. Service users retain, administer and control their own medication where appropriate, and are protected by the home’s policies and procedures for dealing with medicines. The ageing, illness and death of a service user are handled with respect and as the individual would wish. The Commission considers Standards 18, 19, and 20 the key standards to be inspected at least once during a 12 month period. JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for the following standard(s): 18,19,20. Quality in this outcome area is good. This judgement has been made using available evidence including a visit to this service. Service users are treated with respect and their right to privacy respected. Healthcare needs are kept under review and appointments with health care agencies attended as required. Medication systems and storage were satisfactory and up to date. EVIDENCE: The majority of service users require a degree of assistance with aspects of personal care and hygiene. Service users are treated with dignity and respect and levels of privacy are maintained. Service users choose and wear their own clothes. The healthcare needs are monitored and issues addressed. The home operates a monitored dosage system of medication administration. The arrangements for storage and records appeared satisfactory and up to date. There are no self-medicators. The service users and their parents sign consent to medication. All staff have undertaken the ASET level 2 cert in managing and safe handling of medicines. This includes a competency assessment. Seabourne House DS0000023522.V298437.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 14 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. Quality in this outcome area is good. This judgement has been made using available evidence including a visit to this service Residents are encouraged and enabled to state their views and express concerns in formal and informal settings. Staff have training relevant to the management of challenging behaviours and protection of the vulnerable EVIDENCE: All staff have now undertaken Adult protection and POVA training. Service user was observed firmly voicing her opinion on a particular issue that had already been discussed by staff and she was not happy with. .She confirmed that she knew who to speak to if she was worried, concerned or unhappy and staff would listen. This point was reiterated and confirmed in discussion with service users families. Seabourne House DS0000023522.V298437.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 15 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): 24,30. Quality in this outcome area is good. This judgement has been made using available evidence including a visit to this service There is a good standard of décor and cleanliness within the home. It provides a homely and welcoming environment in which to live and work EVIDENCE: At the time of inspection the premises appeared to be clean, tidy and free from undue odours. Shared spaces are adequate for the activities of the home. A no smoking policy operates in the home. There is an enclosed rear garden Laundry facilities though domestic in scale are reportedly adequate for the needs of the home. Requirements and recommendation of previous inspection have been addressed (bedroom – new window has replaced French doors, vent now fitted in laundry). Seabourne House DS0000023522.V298437.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 16 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): 32,34,35. Quality in this outcome area is adequate. This judgement has been made using available evidence including a visit to this service. Recruitment practices are robust and provide for the protection of service users. The service needs to consider how staff competence is evidenced given the lack of NVQ trained staff. Staffing levels throughout the day and night must not compromise safety of service users or staff or inhibit the opportunity for choice EVIDENCE: There was a Staff team of seven at time of visit. All have completed induction and statutory training. 3 have undertaken induction and foundation training. linked to LDAF/skills for care. The Manager has NVQ4. One support staff is on NVQ3 .No other NVQ trained staff. Company recruitment procedure ensures all necessary checks undertaken prior to employment. Staff files were viewed to confirm. The general rota pattern indicates two staff per shift plus the manager There are no staff specifically employed to undertake catering and domestic duties. Night Staffing levels should be risk assessed in the light of the currently expressed needs of the service user group. Given that the service users may Seabourne House DS0000023522.V298437.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 17 be funded for a period of 1-1, or at times require, close supervision, the registered person needs to ensure that the staffing levels throughout the day and night do not compromise safety of service users or staff or inhibit the opportunity for choice. Seabourne House DS0000023522.V298437.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 18 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): 37,39,42. Quality in this outcome area is Good. This judgement has been made using available evidence including a visit to this service. The home is well run in an inclusive manner. The ethos of the home is supportive, encouraging the development of the service users. The acting manager has not completed the registration process. EVIDENCE: Monthly monitoring visits are carried out by company reps to ensure that the standard of care and relevant documentation is maintained and the premises are in good order. Views, ideas and concerns may be expressed at regular staff and service user meetings. One service user recently attended the Craegmoor client conference. Discussion with staff, service users and family members indicated that the home is run in an inclusive manner for staff and service users. Ms McManus Seabourne House DS0000023522.V298437.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 19 has completed the application for registration forms but has yet to submit them to the Commission. Seabourne House DS0000023522.V298437.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 20 SCORING OF OUTCOMES This page summarises the assessment of the extent to which the National Minimum Standards for Care Homes for Adults 18-65 have been met and uses the following scale. The scale ranges from: 4 Standard Exceeded 2 Standard Almost Met (Commendable) (Minor Shortfalls) 3 Standard Met 1 Standard Not Met (No Shortfalls) (Major Shortfalls) “X” in the standard met box denotes standard not assessed on this occasion “N/A” in the standard met box denotes standard not applicable CHOICE OF HOME Standard No Score 1 X 2 3 3 X 4 X 5 X INDIVIDUAL NEEDS AND CHOICES Standard No 6 7 8 9 10 Score CONCERNS AND COMPLAINTS Standard No Score 22 3 23 3 ENVIRONMENT Standard No Score 24 3 25 X 26 X 27 X 28 X 29 X 30 3 STAFFING Standard No Score 31 X 32 1 33 x 34 3 35 1 36 x CONDUCT AND MANAGEMENT OF THE HOME Standard No 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 Score 3 3 X 3 X LIFESTYLES Standard No Score 11 X 12 2 13 2 14 X 15 3 16 3 17 3 PERSONAL AND HEALTHCARE SUPPORT Standard No 18 19 20 21 Score 3 3 3 x 2 x 3 x x 3 x Seabourne House DS0000023522.V298437.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 21 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 YA32 YA35 Regulation 18 Requirement That Staff have the competencies and qualities required to meet service users’ needs and achieve Sector Skills Council workforce strategy targets within the required timescales. NVQ training. Given that the service users conditions may on occasions require at least 1-1 supervision the registered person needs to ensure that the staffing levels throughout day and night do not compromise safety of service users or staff or inhibit the opportunity for choice. (previously30/04/06) Timescale for action 31/10/06 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 Seabourne House DS0000023522.V298437.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 22 1 2 YA37 YA13 YA12 Acting Manager to complete registration process Transport arrangements need to be reviewed to ensure choice and safety are not compromised. (This was discussed at the last inspection and noted in the report.) Seabourne House DS0000023522.V298437.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 23 Commission for Social Care Inspection Kent and Medway Area Office 11th Floor International House Dover Place Ashford Kent TN23 1HU 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 Seabourne House DS0000023522.V298437.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 24 - 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!