Inspection on 13/11/07 for St Huberts Lodge

This inspection was carried out on 13th November 2007.

CSCI has not published a star rating for this report, though using similar criteria we estimate that the report is Adequate. The way we rate inspection reports is consistent for all houses, though please be aware that this may be different from an official CSCI judgement.

The inspector made no statutory requirements on the home as a result of this inspection and there were no outstanding actions from the previous inspection report.

Other inspections for this house

St Huberts Lodge 23/05/06

St Huberts Lodge 17/11/05

St Huberts Lodge 19/04/05

St Huberts Lodge 20/10/04

St Huberts Lodge 27/04/04

Similar services:

Chirnside House

Keer Sands Residential Home

Ruskin Lodge

Bushell House

Langrigg House

Parkside

Dystlegh Grange

Thornton Lodge

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

CARE HOMES FOR OLDER PEOPLE St Huberts Lodge St Huberts Road Great Harwood Lancashire BB6 7AR Lead Inspector Mrs Janet Proctor Unannounced Inspection 13th November 2007 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 St Huberts Lodge DS0000009440.V350574.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. St Huberts Lodge DS0000009440.V350574.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 3 SERVICE INFORMATION Name of service St Huberts Lodge Address St Huberts Road Great Harwood Lancashire BB6 7AR 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) 01254 888581 01254 728668 bugger1@ntlworld.com Mr Thomas Cardwell Mr Ian Cardwell vacant post Care Home 13 Category(ies) of Old age, not falling within any other category registration, with number (13) of places St Huberts Lodge DS0000009440.V350574.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 4 SERVICE INFORMATION Conditions of registration: Date of last inspection 12th January 2007 Brief Description of the Service: St Huberts Lodge offers care to 13 older people. The building is a large detached house, which has been converted into a care home. It is situated in a residential area of the town of Great Harwood. Opposite the home is a Catholic Church. It is within walking distance of local shops and the town centre. There are 5 double bedrooms, one with an en-suite toilet, and 3 single bedrooms. A hand wash basin is present in all bedrooms. There is one communal toilet on the ground floor and 2 communal bathrooms, with toilet, and 1 communal toilet on its own, on the first floor. There are 2 communal lounges with dining facilities. The first floor can be accessed via a passenger lift. Ramped access is available to the front entrance. Car parking is available to the rear of the home. Information on the home is contained within a Service User’s Guide. A copy of this is kept in the hallway of the home and is also sent out to prospective residents. The charges are from £315-50 to £355-00 per week. Extra charges are made for hairdressing and may be made for escorting residents out of the home. St Huberts Lodge DS0000009440.V350574.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 5 SUMMARY This is an overview of what the inspector found during the inspection. A key unannounced inspection, which included a visit to the home, was conducted at St Hubert’s Lodge on the 13th November 2007. One additional visit had been made since the previous inspection. This was done in January 2007 and was made to monitor progress towards meeting the requirements made in the previous report. On the day of the inspection there were 12 residents at the home. Prior to the visit the Registered Person had submitted information in a preinspection questionnaire. This gave information that was used in the planning of the inspection. Surveys were sent out and were returned by two relatives. On the day of the inspection information was obtained from staff records, care records, and policies and procedures. Information was also got from talking to residents, the Manager, and staff members. A tour of the building took place. Wherever possible the views of residents were obtained about their life at the home and their comments are included in the report. What the service does well: All residents received an assessment before moving into St Hubert’s Lodge. This meant that the manager had the information needed to decide whether the home could meet their needs. If the home could meet their needs the prospective resident received a letter telling them this and arranging their admission. This gave them confidence that they would receive the care that was right for them. The residents spoken to were happy with their care. They felt they were well looked after. They said, “When I had my stroke I told my daughter that I wanted to come here and I’ve never regretted it ”and “They’re looking after me very well. They make sure that I have everything that I need”. Residents were able to make choices about their lives, for example when they got up and went to bed. This meant that their daily routines were to their liking. A resident spoken to said, “I get up after having breakfast in bed. Then I get washed and dressed and ring for them to come and take me down.” The home provided nourishing and plentiful meals. The residents were very satisfied with the meals they received. A resident said, “The food’s very good – they’ll get you anything you want and like” Nearly all of the care staff had a recognised qualification in care. This meant that they had the knowledge that they needed to do their work in a proper way. St Huberts Lodge DS0000009440.V350574.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 6 What has improved since the last inspection? What they could do better: The care plan must be kept up to date so that staff have accurate and current information on what they need to do for the resident. If the care to be given changes then there should be evidence that the resident or their representative have been told about this so that they can give their agreement. Only appropriate means must be used to keep a resident in bed so that they are protected from harm. Residents must receive their medication as and when it is prescribed so that their health and welfare is protected. Any medication no longer needed should be immediately recorded in the returns book so that it is apparent if any is mislaid. There should be information for staff about when ‘as required’ medication is to be given so that this is done in a consistent manner. Information leaflets should be obtained about each medication so that staff and residents can refer to these if they need to. If staff record any ‘grumbles’ from residents they should also record what action they have taken to show that they have tried to resolve the issue St Huberts Lodge DS0000009440.V350574.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 7 The duty rota must be an accurate and correct record of which staff have worked and when so that it can be shown that there is always adequate numbers of staff on duty. There should be systems to monitor the quality of care and services given to residents so that the Manager can identify any short falls and put things in place to remedy these. 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. St Huberts Lodge DS0000009440.V350574.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 8 DETAILS OF INSPECTOR FINDINGS CONTENTS Choice of Home (Standards 1–6) Health and Personal Care (Standards 7-11) Daily Life and Social Activities (Standards 12-15) Complaints and Protection (Standards 16-18) Environment (Standards 19-26) Staffing (Standards 27-30) Management and Administration (Standards 31-38) Scoring of Outcomes Statutory Requirements Identified During the Inspection St Huberts Lodge DS0000009440.V350574.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 9 Choice of Home The intended outcomes for Standards 1 – 6 are: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Prospective service users have the information they need to make an informed choice about where to live. Each service user has a written contract/ statement of terms and conditions with the home. No service user moves into the home without having had his/her needs assessed and been assured that these will be met. Service users and their representatives know that the home they enter will meet their needs. Prospective service users and their relatives and friends have an opportunity to visit and assess the quality, facilities and suitability of the home. Service users assessed and referred solely for intermediate care are helped to maximise their independence and return home. The Commission considers Standards 3 and 6 the key standards to be inspected. JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for the following standard(s): 3 and 6 Quality in this outcome area is good. This judgement has been made using available evidence including a visit to this service. Residents could be confident that the home could meet their needs. This was because they had their needs assessed before moving into the home and received a letter confirming the home could meet these needs EVIDENCE: The file for two residents who had been recently admitted were examined. These showed that an assessment had been done before the resident came to live at St Hubert’s Lodge. The assessment covered personal and health care needs. It gave sufficient information for the manager to make a decision about whether the prospective resident’s needs could be met at the home. A letter was then sent to the prospective resident telling them whether the home could meet their needs. This documentation was kept on file. Intermediate care was not given at St Hubert’s Lodge. St Huberts Lodge DS0000009440.V350574.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 10 Health and Personal Care The intended outcomes for Standards 7 – 11 are: 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. The service user’s health, personal and social care needs are set out in an individual plan of care. Service users’ health care needs are fully met. Service users, where appropriate, are responsible for their own medication, and are protected by the home’s policies and procedures for dealing with medicines. Service users feel they are treated with respect and their right to privacy is upheld. Service users are assured that at the time of their death, staff will treat them and their family with care, sensitivity and respect. The Commission considers Standards 7, 8, 9 and 10 the key standards to be inspected. JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for the following standard(s): 7, 8, 9 and 10 Quality in this outcome area is adequate. This judgement has been made using available evidence including a visit to this service. The and The The plans of care identified the health and personal care needs of the residents gave directions on how to meet these, but were not always up to date. control of medications had improved but did not fully safeguard residents. staff at the home met residents’ personal care needs in private. EVIDENCE: The files for three residents were viewed. They included a summary of the care needs, routines and preferences of the resident. This information was individualised and personalised to the resident. The care plans had been reviewed every month and there was an indication of the progress being made. This information was not always transferred to the ‘daily living needs’ section. As this is what staff referred to when they needed to know what care the resident needed it is important that it is kept accurate and up to date. The plans contained a form the resident or their relative had signed to say that they had read the plan and were in agreement with the contents. This was not updated when the details in the plan changed. Therefore, it could not be certain that the resident or relative were in agreement with the changes to the St Huberts Lodge DS0000009440.V350574.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 11 care routine. Both surveys returned said that the home gave the support or care that was expected or agreed and they were kept up to date with important issues affecting their friend/relative. The residents’ health care needs had been assessed. These included: risk of developing pressure sores; nutrition; risk of falls; and moving and handling needs. The directions given to staff on how to meet these needs were individualised to the resident. One resident was in bed with a chair wedged beside it as a means of keeping her in bed. This was inappropriate and may cause injury if the resident fell between the chair and the bed. This was removed at the time of the inspection and advice sought from the District Nurses. There was evidence that the District Nurses were involved in the care of one resident. Also that GP’s were consulted when necessary. A resident said, “I had my flu jab last week.” The medications were stored in a metal stand cupboard and a wooden wall cupboard in the hall/porchway of the home. Both cupboards were locked and there was no evidence of over stocking. There were no unnamed medications in the cupboard. The Controlled Drugs were stored safely. The records of Controlled Drugs accurately reflected the stock held. The administration of Controlled Drugs was recorded and witnessed in an appropriate Controlled Drug register. There were systems and records for ordering and receipt of medications. These now included the prescriptions coming to the home for checking before going to the Community Pharmacist. Some additional medication had been brought in by the family of a new resident and this was not recorded on the chart. Therefore, there were no accurate records of how many tablets were actually in the home. The records of medications being returned were only completed as they were taken by the Pharmacist so it would not be apparent if any went missing in the meantime. Only staff who had received training administered the medications. Medication Administration Record charts examined showed that a second member of staff had witnessed all hand written entries. There was a photograph on the chart to enable staff to correctly identify the resident. One medication audited showed that 28 tablets had been received and 19 administered. There were 10 tablets left in the packet. Therefore, one had been signed for and not given. There was a tablet for 22/10/07 still in the blister pack but had been signed for as given on the chart. There was no information for staff about when ‘as required’ medication should be given. This is needed to ensure that the medication is given in a consistent manner. There was a staff signature list. Patient information leaflets were not available. These need to be available so that staff can refer to them if they need to know anything about the medication. St Huberts Lodge DS0000009440.V350574.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 12 There were good interactions between the staff and the residents and a friendly atmosphere. All care was given in private. The preferred name of the resident was in the care plans and was known and used by staff. Residents had access to a telephone. St Huberts Lodge DS0000009440.V350574.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 13 Daily Life and Social Activities The intended outcomes for Standards 12 - 15 are: 12. 13. 14. 15. Service users find the lifestyle experienced in the home matches their expectations and preferences, and satisfies their social, cultural, religious and recreational interests and needs. Service users maintain contact with family/ friends/ representatives and the local community as they wish. Service users are helped to exercise choice and control over their lives. Service users receive a wholesome appealing balanced diet in pleasing surroundings at times convenient to them. The Commission considers all of the above key standards to be inspected. JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for the following standard(s): 12, 13, 14 and 15. Quality in this outcome area is good. This judgement has been made using available evidence including a visit to this service. Residents were able to make choices about their life at the home so that their lifestyle met their preferences. Resident’s social, cultural and recreational needs were met through links with their family and friends being maintained and opportunities to undertake activities within the home. The meals offered at the home were good and ensured that the individual dietary needs of residents were met. EVIDENCE: There was a programme of activities displayed on the wall. The staff took responsibility for doing these with the residents, especially the Manager. Two residents said that the Manager did quizes and games with them and that he kept them entertained. Another resident said that she liked to watch TV during the day. Staff said that due to the age and condition there were not many residents able or willing to join in. On the day of the inspection residents were seen reading magazines and watching TV. No formal activities were seen to be done. St Huberts Lodge DS0000009440.V350574.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 14 There was information in the Service User’s Guide about visiting. This was described as an “open door” policy. Staff said that they got a lot of visitors at the week-ends, especially on Saturday when they held a sherry afternoon. The care plans seen identified the daily routines for the resident. It said what time they liked to get up and go to bed. A resident spoken to said that she had breakfast in bed every morning and rang for staff when she was ready to come down to the lounge. The staff said that residents were encouraged to make choices about their lifestyle whenever they could. There were no fixed getting up and retiring times. Residents expressed their satisfaction with the food served at the home. The staff knew the residents’ likes and dislikes. They let residents know was for the meal and that they could have an alternative if they wished. Records were kept of the meals served. These specified if resident had anything different. The meals included two roast dinners each week. There were no residents requiring a special diet at the time of the inspection. Fresh vegetables were used every day and fresh fruit was available. There were records of storage and cooking temperatures. St Huberts Lodge DS0000009440.V350574.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 15 Complaints and Protection The intended outcomes for Standards 16 - 18 are: 16. 17. 18. Service users and their relatives and friends are confident that their complaints will be listened to, taken seriously and acted upon. Service users’ legal rights are protected. Service users are protected from abuse. The Commission considers Standards 16 and 18 the key standards to be. JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for the following standard(s): 16 and 18. Quality in this outcome area is good. This judgement has been made using available evidence including a visit to this service. Residents were confident that their complaints would be listened to and acted upon. The procedures and training given to staff ensured that residents were safeguarded. EVIDENCE: There was a complaint procedure on display in the hallway. This was also included in the Service User’s Guide. This gave clear directions on who to make a complaint to and that a response would be made within 28 days. The procedure also had the address and telephone number of the Commission. No complaints had been received at the home for several years. A system for recording grumbles and compliments had been started. Two grumbles had been recorded but there was no record of what action had been taken to sort these out. There were several nice compliments about the home and the staff. No complaints had been made directly to the Commission. Both of the surveys returned said that they knew how to make a complaint and that the home had responded properly if any issue had been brought to their attention. There was a procedure for responding to an allegation or suspicion of abuse. It complied with No Secrets and gave good directions to staff on what they should do and who they should report to. There was also a Whistle-blowing procedure. Staff spoken to were aware of reporting allegations and incidents and had received training in Protection of Vulnerable Adults. St Huberts Lodge DS0000009440.V350574.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 16 Environment The intended outcomes for Standards 19 – 26 are: 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. Service users live in a safe, well-maintained environment. Service users have access to safe and comfortable indoor and outdoor communal facilities. Service users have sufficient and suitable lavatories and washing facilities. Service users have the specialist equipment they require to maximise their independence. Service users’ own rooms suit their needs. Service users live in safe, comfortable bedrooms with their own possessions around them. Service users live in safe, comfortable surroundings. The home is clean, pleasant and hygienic. The Commission considers Standards 19 and 26 the key standards to be inspected. JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for the following standard(s): 19 and 26. Quality in this outcome area is adequate. This judgement has been made using available evidence including a visit to this service. The home provided comfortable and clean surroundings. This meant that residents were happy with their accommodation at the home. EVIDENCE: The lounge and dining room downstairs had a very homely atmosphere. There were ornaments, fresh flowers and pictures. There were tables by the side of armchairs for drinks. The doors to the lounge and dining room were wedged open which may potentially affect safety in the event of a fire. There was domestic style lighting in the main rooms but fluorescent lights in some bedrooms. There was only one communal toilet on ground floor, but no resident made comment about this affecting them. There was a lift to enable access to the first floor. The home had 5 double bedrooms and 3 single. The Manager said that when a vacancy came available in a double room, this was managed sensitively. The St Huberts Lodge DS0000009440.V350574.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 17 residents were introduced and allowed to get to know each other before a decision was made about future sharing. The double bedrooms had a privacy curtain around the wash-basin and the use of a privacy screen for around the beds. The bedrooms were individualised and personalised with small belongings of the residents. There were two bathrooms. One of the double bedrooms had an en-suite shower room. Wander leads were seen to enable residents to use the nurse call system The laundry was in the cellar. Access to this did not compromise infection control. The laundry had washable floor and walls. There were 2 washers and 2 driers. There was no sluice programme but they did a hot wash. There was a sink unit with paper towels and gloves available. After drying the linen was sorted upstairs before being returned to residents. Blue and white plastic aprons were available for food and care tasks. Plastic gloves were available. There were infection control procedures for staff to refer to. St Huberts Lodge DS0000009440.V350574.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 18 Staffing The intended outcomes for Standards 27 – 30 are: 27. 28. 29. 30. Service users’ needs are met by the numbers and skill mix of staff. Service users are in safe hands at all times. Service users are supported and protected by the home’s recruitment policy and practices. Staff are trained and competent to do their jobs. The Commission consider all the above are key standards to be inspected. JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for the following standard(s): 27, 28, 29 and 30. Quality in this outcome area is good. This judgement has been made using available evidence including a visit to this service. There was sufficient staff on duty for the needs of the residents. The recruitment procedures had improved and safeguarded residents. The amount of staff training ensured that staff had the skills and knowledge to undertake their duties. EVIDENCE: There was a rota showing the name of staff and when they worked. During the day time hours the manager and, or, the Deputy were on duty with a carer. This was not always recorded on the rota, giving the impression that there was only one person on duty on some days. There was a Cook on duty each day from 10.00 am to 1.00 pm. Domestic duties were done from 1.00 pm – 5.00 pm four days a week. Staff spoken to said that there were sufficient staff on duty to enable them to do their work. The files for three new members of staff were examined. These showed that recruitment procedures had improved and had been done in a thorough manner. Each file had an application form with a full history of employment. References had been obtained and a Criminal Records Bureau check done. There was proof of identity for the staff member. Staff were issued with a contract. St Huberts Lodge DS0000009440.V350574.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 19 New staff did induction training when they first started work so that they got the skills and knowledge that they needed to do their work. They used a booklet that complied with Skills for care and worked through this with the Deputy Manager. The training matrix was not up to date but the Manager completed this before the end of the inspection. This showed that training opportunities had improved. As well as mandatory training staff had also done training in loss and bereavement and dementia care. Staff spoken to confirmed that they had done the training and found it useful. There were 12 carers employed and 10 of these had the National Vocational Qualification in care level 2 or above. St Huberts Lodge DS0000009440.V350574.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 20 Management and Administration The intended outcomes for Standards 31 – 38 are: 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. Service users live in a home which is run and managed by a person who is fit to be in charge, of good character and able to discharge his or her responsibilities fully. Service users benefit from the ethos, leadership and management approach of the home. The home is run in the best interests of service users. Service users are safeguarded by the accounting and financial procedures of the home. Service users’ financial interests are safeguarded. Staff are appropriately supervised. Service users’ rights and best interests are safeguarded by the home’s record keeping, policies and procedures. The health, safety and welfare of service users and staff are promoted and protected. The Commission considers Standards 31, 33, 35 and 38 the key standards to be inspected. JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for the following standard(s): 31, 33, 35 and 38. Quality in this outcome area is adequate. This judgement has been made using available evidence including a visit to this service. Current quality assurance systems did not fully show that the home was run in the best interests of the residents. Financial interests of residents were fully safeguarded. Training in safe working practices for staff meant that the health and safety of residents and staff was protected. EVIDENCE: The home was managed by one of the registered persons. He had over 20 years experience of running a residential home. He had completed the National Vocational Qualification in care level 4 and had joined in all the mandatory training sessions. He had a job description detailing his role and responsibilities. The Deputy Manager had also completed the National Vocational Qualification in care level 4. St Huberts Lodge DS0000009440.V350574.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 21 There were no formal systems for measuring the quality of the service being provided at St Hubert’s Lodge. There was no annual development plan to show what had been prioritised for the coming year. Residents’ or relatives surveys were not done and residents meetings were not held. This meant that there were no means by which residents could make their views known about the service. The Manager said that he speaks informally to residents on a daily basis and that a large amount of relatives visited regularly and he took the opportunity to speak to them at that time. Staff meetings were not held. Again, there were informal systems in place. The Manager said that he meets with the seniors and carers as they come on shift and gives them information. He said he worked alongside them and kept them up to date that way. A member of staff said, “We don’t have staff meetings but they are always asking us what we think about things and you can say things to them – everyone chips in. I think our views are valued.” The Manager collected the pension for one resident. There were records to show the amount of money received and amount paid to the resident. Only the money for three residents was kept on the premises. There was a safe for this. The balance of money was checked against the records and found to be correct. There was a record of charges made to residents and payments received. The fire alarms were checked weekly. Fire drills were done and the records showed the name of staff attending and comments on the outcome of the drill. All appliances and equipment were serviced as required. Training for staff in health and safety issues was up to date or in the process of being arranged. St Huberts Lodge DS0000009440.V350574.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 22 SCORING OF OUTCOMES This page summarises the assessment of the extent to which the National Minimum Standards for Care Homes for 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 2 8 2 9 2 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 2 17 X 18 3 3 X X X X X X 3 STAFFING Standard No Score 27 2 28 4 29 3 30 3 MANAGEMENT AND ADMINISTRATION Standard No 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 Score 3 X 2 X 3 X X 3 St Huberts Lodge DS0000009440.V350574.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 23 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 OP8 Regulation 13(4)(c) Requirement Timescale for action 13/11/07 2 OP9 13(2) Only appropriate means must be used to keep a resident in bed so that they are protected from harm. All medication brought into the 13/11/07 home must be recorded so that there is an accurate record of how much there is. Residents must receive their medication as and when it is prescribed so that their health and welfare is protected. The duty rota must be an accurate and correct record of which staff have worked and when so that it can be shown that there is always adequate numbers of staff on duty. 3 OP27 Schedule 4 (7) 13/11/07 RECOMMENDATIONS These recommendations relate to National Minimum Standards and are seen as good practice for the Registered Provider/s to consider carrying out. No. Refer to Good Practice Recommendations DS0000009440.V350574.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 24 St Huberts Lodge 1 Standard OP7 2 OP9 3 4 OP16 OP33 The care plan must be kept up to date so that staff have accurate and current information on what they need to do for the resident. If the care to be given changes then there should be evidence that the resident or their representative have been told about this so that they can give their agreement. Any medication no longer needed should be immediately recorded in the returns book so that it is apparent if any is mislaid. There should be information for staff about when ‘as required’ medication is to be given so that this is done in a consistent manner. Information leaflets should be obtained about each medication so that staff and residents can refer to these if they need to. The Deputy Manager should continue to monitor the correct signing of the Medication Administration Recording charts. If staff record any ‘grumbles’ from residents they should also record what action they have taken to show that they have tried to resolve the issue. There should be systems to monitor the quality of care and services given to residents so that the Manager can identify any short falls and put things in place to remedy these. St Huberts Lodge DS0000009440.V350574.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 25 Commission for Social Care Inspection Lancashire Area Office Unit 1 Tustin Court Portway Preston PR2 2YQ National Enquiry Line: Telephone: 0845 015 0120 or 0191 233 3323 Textphone: 0845 015 2255 or 0191 233 3588 Email: enquiries@csci.gsi.gov.uk Web: www.csci.org.uk © This report is copyright Commission for Social Care Inspection (CSCI) and may only be used in its entirety. Extracts may not be used or reproduced without the express permission of CSCI St Huberts Lodge DS0000009440.V350574.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 26 - Please note that this information is included on www.bestcarehome.co.uk under license from the regulator. Re-publishing this information is in breach of the terms of use of that website. Discrete codes and changes have been inserted throughout the textual data shown on the site that will provide incontrovertable proof of copying in the event this information is re-published on other websites. The policy of www.bestcarehome.co.uk is to use all legal avenues to pursue such offenders, including recovery of costs. You have been warned!