Inspection on 14/06/05 for Stansfield Hall

This inspection was carried out on 14th June 2005.

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 found there to be outstanding requirements from the previous inspection report but made no statutory requirements on the home.

Other inspections for this house

Stansfield Hall 30/07/09

Stansfield Hall 10/07/08

Stansfield Hall 16/07/07

Stansfield Hall 13/11/06

Stansfield Hall 26/04/06

Stansfield Hall 17/10/05

Stansfield Hall 07/10/04

Stansfield Hall 14/04/04

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 Stansfield Hall, Temple Lane, Littleborough, Rochdale, OL15 9QH. Lead Inspector Diane Gaunt Unannounced 14th June 2005 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 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. Stansfield Hall, F06 F56 S52796 Stansfield Hall V230442 Stage 4.doc Version 1.30 Page 3 SERVICE INFORMATION Name of service Stansfield Hall, Address Temple Lane, Littleborough, Rochdale, OL15 9QH. 01706 370096 Telephone number Fax number Email address Name of registered provider(s)/company (if applicable) Name of registered manager (if applicable) Type of registration No. of places registered (if applicable) Rajanikanath Selvanadan Care Home 22 Category(ies) of Old Age 22 registration, with number of places Stansfield Hall, F06 F56 S52796 Stansfield Hall V230442 Stage 4.doc Version 1.30 Page 4 SERVICE INFORMATION Conditions of registration: 1. The home is registered for a maximum of 22 service users to include: up to 22 service users in the category OP (Older people) 2. That the service should at all times employ a suitably qualified and experienced manager who is registered with the Commission for Social Care Inspection. Date of last inspection 7th October 2004 Brief Description of the Service: Stansfield hall is located approximately two miles from the centre of Littleborough. Originally a school, the stone building has been extended and adapted to provide personal care and accomodation for 22 service users aged 65 years and over. The home provides 14 single and 4 double bedrooms. Access to the home is up two steps, although there is good ramped access to the side of the home via the conservatory. All accomodation is on ground floor level. For safety reasons there is limited access to gardens. A small patio area is provided and is used by service users in fine weather. Parking for approximatley 8 cars is provided with further on street parking available as needed. There are a number of shops nearby but they are not easily reached by residents. A regular bus service to Rochdale and Todmorden stops close to the home. Stansfield Hall, F06 F56 S52796 Stansfield Hall V230442 Stage 4.doc Version 1.30 Page 5 SUMMARY This is an overview of what the inspector found during the inspection. This unannounced inspection took place over 8½ hours. The inspector looked around the building and looked at a number of records. Six of the fourteen residents, two relatives, two care assistants, one senior carer, the cook and the acting manager were spoken with. Care practice was observed. Comment cards asking residents and visitors what they thought about the care at Stansfield Hall had been given out a few weeks before the inspection. Nine residents, 7 relatives and one visiting GP filled the cards in and returned them to CSCI. Their opinions are also included in the report. Requirements listed at the end of the report include 2 that have not been fully met since the last inspection. The deputy was acting as manager of the home as the previous manager had left the home 6 weeks before this inspection. What the service does well: What has improved since the last inspection? Worn corridors doors had been refurbished and worn easy chairs replaced, a settee which was difficult for residents to get up from had been replaced by more suitable seating. The bath hoist had been mended. The care residents needed was discussed and agreed with them and/or their relatives every 6 months. In between, the care given was changed if residents’ needed less or more help, and this was written down. Some procedures e.g. about medication, had been changed to make sure staff followed good practice. Stansfield Hall, F06 F56 S52796 Stansfield Hall V230442 Stage 4.doc Version 1.30 Page 6 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. Stansfield Hall, F06 F56 S52796 Stansfield Hall V230442 Stage 4.doc Version 1.30 Page 7 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 Standards Statutory Requirements Identified During the Inspection Stansfield Hall, F06 F56 S52796 Stansfield Hall V230442 Stage 4.doc Version 1.30 Page 8 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 at least once during a 12 month period. JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for standard(s) 3. As intermediate care is not provided at Stansfield Hall, standard 6 is not applicable. An assessment procedure was in place to identify residents’ needs but it did not cover all necessary areas, residents could not therefore be certain all their needs would be met. EVIDENCE: Individual records were kept for each resident. The assessment of the most recently admitted person was inspected. As a social worker had not been involved in the admission there was no external assessment. The internal assessment form had been filled in briefly during a home visit and did not address all the necessary areas. Neither was there evidence of the resident’s/relative’s involvement in completion of the document, although the resident/relative said they had been involved. A detailed care plan had been completed on the day of admission, this did record resident and next of kin involvement. Good practice was in place with regard to regular review of needs. The assessment was also used for emergency admissions to ensure the person’s needs could be met at Stansfield Hall. Stansfield Hall, F06 F56 S52796 Stansfield Hall V230442 Stage 4.doc Version 1.30 Page 9 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 at least once during a 12 month period. JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for standard(s) 7, 8, and 10. Residents and their relatives were consulted about required care, and involved in reviews to discuss changing care needs, ensuring health and care needs were appropriately met on an ongoing basis. Residents were treated with respect and their right to privacy upheld. EVIDENCE: Individual plans of care were available and four were inspected. They clearly recorded care required and inclusion of a social history ensured a personcentred approach. The care plans had been regularly reviewed by staff on a monthly basis and six monthly reviews with the resident and relative had been held. Outcomes were clearly recorded along with the resident or relative’s agreement. All relatives returning comment cards considered they were sufficiently consulted and kept informed with regard to the residents’ care and well-being. Social workers had not been invited to review meetings, it was agreed they would be in the future. Care plans recorded GP and District Nurse involvement. The incidence of pressure sores at the home was low. Residents and relatives considered both health and care needs were met. Residents said the home called their GP when they needed them. A comment card completed by a visiting GP indicated staff understood residents care needs, communicated clearly and worked in partnership with them. They were satisfied with care provision at the home. Stansfield Hall, F06 F56 S52796 Stansfield Hall V230442 Stage 4.doc Version 1.30 Page 10 Residents said chiropodist, optician, dentist and hearing aid specialists visited the home, as and when necessary. The previous chiropodist had been replaced just prior to the inspection as residents were dissatisfied with the service. The acting manager had arranged for a trained reflexologist to visit the home to see if residents would enjoy and benefit from this service. Risk assessments were held with care plans and were regularly reviewed. They addressed areas such as nutrition, skin care, moving and handling, use of bedsides, smoking. Staff interviewed said they were given sufficient information on handover to provide appropriate care for residents. They accessed care plans as necessary and, following a recent change to the keyworker system, were to become involved in the review of care plans. Residents were weighed monthly and their weights monitored. Fluid and food charts were in use for one resident who was ill in bed at the time of the inspection. Medication administration was not assessed on this occasion – the CSCI pharmacy inspector will inspect this area at a later date. A recommendation to provide accredited medication training for all staff administering medication had not been met and this is now required. The majority of residents and relatives spoken with considered residents were treated with respect, although one resident did not like the manner of one staff member. The acting manager is addressing the issue. One resident was particularly complimentary about staff approach with regard to the respect they showed residents. With the exception of one resident who no longer lives at Stansfield Hall all those interviewed and completing comment cards considered their privacy was respected. Staff interviewed were able to describe good practice in this area. Stansfield Hall, F06 F56 S52796 Stansfield Hall V230442 Stage 4.doc Version 1.30 Page 11 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 at least once during a 12 month period. JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for standard(s) 12, 13, and 15. Provision of social activities were limited at the home and did not satisfy the majority of residents’ needs. Contact with family, friends and community was maintained ensuring residents did not become isolated. A balanced diet was provided and enjoyed by the majority of residents. EVIDENCE: An activities co-ordinator was employed but was on leave at the time of the inspection. There were no activities provided during the day of the inspection and regular social activities had decreased since the last inspection. Feedback from 5 residents completing comment cards and the majority of residents, relatives and staff interviewed identified the need for further suitable occupation during the day. This feedback was supported by entries in the activities log. The log showed that some residents enjoyed card making, video afternoons, and quizzes. A number of residents and relatives commented on how much live musical entertainment had been enjoyed in the past and expressed a wish for its regular reinstatement. Arrangements had been made for a summer fair at which musical entertainment would be provided. There were also plans for a trip to a local beauty spot, a visit to a restaurant and a visit from local schoolchildren. Social histories, including detail of residents’ interests, were held at the front of care plans but not used in the body of the care plan to address how social needs could be met. In order to develop present provision to meet the needs Stansfield Hall, F06 F56 S52796 Stansfield Hall V230442 Stage 4.doc Version 1.30 Page 12 of all residents, further activities should be introduced, including some on a one to one basis. Local clergy and Eucharistic visitor called at the home to give communion to those who wanted it. One resident went out to church on a weekly basis. Some residents who were not able to, said they would like to have a service held at the home. The acting manager agreed to explore the possibility. All relatives interviewed and returning comment cards considered they were well received when visiting the home. They could see their relative in either communal areas or the privacy of their rooms. The conservatory was available should they wish to visit in private but not use the bedroom. Those residents who went out regularly did so with relatives. Menus inspected were seen to provide a varied, balanced and nutritious diet. The main meal was usually served at teatime. Food served during the inspection looked and smelt appetising. Residents interviewed all enjoyed the food, comments included ‘very good’, ‘generous helpings’, and ‘magnificent’. Some commented on the limited choices at times, with a reliance on soup as a soft alternative at lunchtime – although they acknowledged that this was often nutritious, home made soup. Whilst the majority of residents completing comment cards said they liked the food, two residents said they sometimes didn’t. It was noted that the alternative to the main meal was sometimes salad, if residents wished to have a hot alternative they had little choice. The menu was under review at the time of the inspection and ‘taster’ days had been introduced. Aforementioned comments should be considered when changing the menu. The assistant cook was on duty on the day of inspection and had deviated from the menu. The main meal had also been served at lunchtime rather than teatime, without consultation with residents. Suitable provision was made for those needing special diets i.e. diabetic and soft diets, and staff gave appropriate assistance to those needing it. Fluid and food intake charts were in use for one resident for monitoring purposes. Stansfield Hall, F06 F56 S52796 Stansfield Hall V230442 Stage 4.doc Version 1.30 Page 13 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 inspected at least once during a 12 month period. JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for standard(s) 16 and 18. Residents were confident that complaints would be listened to, taken seriously and acted upon. Whilst appropriate systems were in place to protect residents from abuse, staff were in need of further training to ensure their full understanding. EVIDENCE: The home had a complaints procedure. It was on the notice board in the entrance area and on each bedroom door. A complaints book was available in the area outside the office for anyone to record a complaint, none had been recorded for some considerable time. CSCI had received one complaint since the last inspection. It was unsubstantiated in the main. Substantiated areas had been identified on an inspection just prior to receipt of the complaint and the home was in the process of addressing each area at the time the complaint was made. Residents and relatives spoken with said they raised small issues as they occurred and they were always satisfactorily dealt with, negating the need for formal complaint. A procedure for responding to allegations of abuse was available as was an inter-agency procedure. Appropriate reporting and recording procedures were provided and followed. Staff spoken with understood the importance of reporting malpractice, but were not all clear about the different types of abuse. Following recommendation at the last inspection some training had been provided for staff by the last manager but it was not adequate to meet their needs. Feedback from residents indicated they felt safe living at Stansfield Hall. Stansfield Hall, F06 F56 S52796 Stansfield Hall V230442 Stage 4.doc Version 1.30 Page 14 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 at least once during a 12 month period. JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for standard(s) 19 and 26. In the main, the premises were adequately maintained and provided a safe place for residents to live. The home was hygienic and sufficiently clean in most areas providing residents with a homely setting to live in. EVIDENCE: Since the last inspection corridor doors had been refurbished and a number of easy chairs replaced. The majority of easy chairs in communal areas were in acceptable condition although some were in need of cleaning. One bedroom carpet, although otherwise in good condition had been stained by bleach in a number of areas. Residents considered their bedrooms to be comfortable and were pleased that they had been able to bring their own furniture, pictures etc for their rooms. The home was odour free. Observation and discussion with staff and residents confirmed there were satisfactory infection control practices. Residents and relatives considered the home was kept clean in the main, although comment was made that dusting was not done as often as necessary. Observation supported this comment. Due to one domestic being on sick ness leave, insufficient domestic hours were provided to meet the minimum. Stansfield Hall, F06 F56 S52796 Stansfield Hall V230442 Stage 4.doc Version 1.30 Page 15 Residents said they enjoyed sitting out in the good weather. For safety reasons they had limited access to the garden but used a patio area off the car park that provided good views of the surrounding countryside. The registered provider had plans to make the path and greenhouse safe in order that residents could use it to pursue gardening interests. Observation was made during the inspection that the call bells were very loud when they rang in the home. Staff and residents also commented on the discomfort this caused. Stansfield Hall, F06 F56 S52796 Stansfield Hall V230442 Stage 4.doc Version 1.30 Page 16 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 considers Standards 27, 29, and 30 the key standards to be inspected at least once during a 12 month period. JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for standard(s) 27, 28, 29 and 30. Recruitment and selection procedures were unsatisfactory and did not provide sufficient safeguards for the protection of residents living at the home. Sufficient staffing hours were provided to meet residents needs. Staff had basic training but needed additional input to ensure their competence. EVIDENCE: Inspection of four staff files showed that the home’s recruitment and selection procedures and the Care Homes Regulations 2001 had not been followed by the manager who left the home shortly before the inspection. Two of the four staff had been employed without a Criminal Records Bureau (CRB) check and two had been employed prior to references being taken. A recent photograph of one staff member was not held at the home, and copies of qualifications not held on file. There had been a turnover of staff since the last inspection. The registered manager had left and her replacement left shortly before this inspection. The deputy was acting manager and was in the process of recruiting care staff. When short of staff, existing staff had worked additional hours or bank or agency workers were used. Rotas for the week of inspection and 3 previous weeks were inspected and sufficient hours provided to meet the minimum. Staff and residents interviewed considered they had sufficient time to meet the resident needs, although one resident said she occasionally had to wait a while for staff to respond to the call bell. The acting manager agreed to address this matter. Stansfield Hall, F06 F56 S52796 Stansfield Hall V230442 Stage 4.doc Version 1.30 Page 17 Residents spoke positively of staff, one person said they were ‘all lovely’. Staff confirmed in interview that induction and foundation training was ongoing for the newest staff members working at the home. Individual training profiles were in place but had not been fully completed. As these records had not been maintained the acting manager could not monitor whether staff were receiving 3 days paid training per annum, and when refresher training was due. Health and safety training was not up to date for every staff member – further comment is made in the management and administration section below. Other relevant training, e.g. in dementia care, was not provided although a number of residents had mild dementia. Excluding the acting manager, six of eighteen care staff had NVQ 2 training. None were taking NVQ training at the time of the inspection. Stansfield Hall, F06 F56 S52796 Stansfield Hall V230442 Stage 4.doc Version 1.30 Page 18 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 33, 35 and 38 the key standards to be inspected at least once during a 12 month period. JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for standard(s) 31, 35 and 38. A registered manager has not been in post at the home for over 6 months, management responsibilities have therefore not been fully discharged. Satisfactory arrangements were in place to ensure service users’ finances were safeguarded. Some practices did not promote and safeguard health, safety and welfare of the people using the service. EVIDENCE: The home had been without a manager since the end of March 2005, and without a registered manager since November 2004. The deputy manager was acting manager at the time of the inspection but had no management training. Staff, residents and relatives considered the deputy to be open and approachable. Residents and relatives knew who she was and said they would go to her if there was a matter they needed addressing. In the absence of a registered manager the provider visited the home regularly but for short periods, monthly monitoring reports regarding provision at the home were not completed however. Stansfield Hall, F06 F56 S52796 Stansfield Hall V230442 Stage 4.doc Version 1.30 Page 19 All residents and relatives interviewed were happy with the arrangements regarding personal monies. The registered owner acted as appointee for one resident. Arrangements have been made for personal allowance monies to be paid weekly. Where the home had involvement with residents’ monies, appropriate records and receipts were held. As stated above, insufficient health and safety training had been provided for staff. The previous manager had provided in-house training based on training packs but staff did not feel it equipped them with sufficient information to do the job. Whilst some of this was refresher training for staff, for others it was their first training in these essential areas. Three kitchen assistants had not had food hygiene training. No health and safety hazards were noted during the inspection. Residents, relatives and staff interviewed considered the building to be a safe place to live and work. Evidence relating to regular maintenance checks could not be located despite extensive searches by the deputy manager and registered provider. Contact had also been made with the previous manager in an effort to find them. Regular in-house fire checks had not been carried out since March 2005. Stansfield Hall, F06 F56 S52796 Stansfield Hall V230442 Stage 4.doc Version 1.30 Page 20 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 ENVIRONMENT Standard No 1 2 3 4 5 6 Score Standard No 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Score x x 2 x x N/A HEALTH AND PERSONAL CARE Standard No Score 7 3 8 3 9 x 10 3 11 x DAILY LIFE AND SOCIAL ACTIVITIES Standard No Score 12 1 13 3 14 x 15 2 COMPLAINTS AND PROTECTION 2 x x x x x x 3 STAFFING Standard No Score 27 3 28 2 29 1 30 2 MANAGEMENT AND ADMINISTRATION Standard No 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 Score Standard No 16 17 18 Score 3 x 2 1 x x x 3 x x 1 Stansfield Hall, F06 F56 S52796 Stansfield Hall V230442 Stage 4.doc Version 1.30 Page 21 Yes 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 38 Regulation 13 Requirement First aid training must be provided to ensure at least one staff member per shift is trained. (Original timescale of 30.12.2004 not met). Food hygiene training must be provided for all staff who assist with preparation and serving of food. (Original timescale of 30.12.2004 not met). Accredited medication training must be provided for all staff who administer medication. Additional activities must be planned to meet residents needs on both a group and individual basis. Staff must receive adequate training with regard to protection of vulnerable adults, including use of the Inter-agency procedure. Additional domestic hours must be provided to ensure the home is clean throughout. Requirements of Regulation 19 and Schedule 2 must be met before employing staff at the home. Application to register a manager must be made. F06 F56 S52796 Stansfield Hall V230442 Stage 4.doc Timescale for action 15.08.2005 2. 38 13 31.10.2005 3. 4. 9 12 12 16 31.10.2005 15.09.2005 5. 18 18 31.10.2005 6. 7. 26 29 18 19 15.08.2005 15.07.2005 8. 31 8 31.08.2005 Page 22 Stansfield Hall, Version 1.30 9. 31 26 10. 38 18 11. 12. 38 38 23 23 Regulation 26 reports must be completed on a monthly basis and copies provided for the acting manager and CSCI. Adequate training in moving and handling, infection control and health and safety must be provided for all staff. Regular fire equipment/ precautions checks must be undertaken and recorded Evidence of all necessary maintenance checks must be forwarded to CSCI. 15.07.2005 31.08.2005 15.07.2005 31.08.2005 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. Refer to Standard 36 3 15 Good Practice Recommendations All care staff should receive formal supervision at least 6 times per year. Assessment of potential residents should include all areas listed in standard 3 and be agreed by the potential resident and/or their next of kin. A choice of hot meals should be provided and residents should be consulted as to when they wish to have their main meal. Once agreement is reached, cooks should not deviate from the menu. Easy chairs should continue to be replaced as necessary and marked chairs should be cleaned. The carpet in room 30 should be replaced. Action should be taken to reduce call bell noise, whilst ensuring it can still be heard by staff throughout the building. The provider should arrange NVQ level 2 training for more care staff to ensure 50 have achieved the qualification during 2005. Staff should receive training to meet residents individual needs e.g. dementia care Individual staff training profiles should be kept up to date and the information used to ensure refresher training is provided when needed and to ensure each staff memnber F06 F56 S52796 Stansfield Hall V230442 Stage 4.doc Version 1.30 Page 23 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 19 19 19 28 30 30 Stansfield Hall, receives 3 paid days training per annum. Stansfield Hall, F06 F56 S52796 Stansfield Hall V230442 Stage 4.doc Version 1.30 Page 24 Commission for Social Care Inspection Turton Suite, Paragon Business Park, Chorley New Road, Horwich, Bolton, BL6 6HG. 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 Stansfield Hall, F06 F56 S52796 Stansfield Hall V230442 Stage 4.doc Version 1.30 Page 25 - 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!