Please wait

Please note that the information on this website is now out of date. It is planned that we will update and relaunch, but for now is of historical interest only and we suggest you visit cqc.org.uk

Inspection on 27/02/07 for Summer Court Hall Residential Home

Also see our care home review for Summer Court Hall Residential Home for more information

This inspection was carried out on 27th February 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.

What follows are excerpts from this inspection report. For more information read the full report on the next tab.

What the care home does well

The home presents as an informal and friendly environment in which the service users, regardless of need or ability, are able to live a reasonable lifestyle at a pace best suited to the individual. Emphasis is placed on the promotion of the service users` independence even where this necessitates them undertaking a degree of assessed risk. The staff treat the service users with appropriate respect and do not `fuss` over them but allow them space and time to function at their own pace. The staff continue to be provided with good standards of training which has consequently produced an enthusiastic, knowledgeable and cohesive staff team. The staff and service users are provided with good standards of management support in order that they can achieve good standards of care and meet the service users` assessed needs.

What has improved since the last inspection?

A number of physical improvements have been made to the property during the past year including the installation of a new passenger lift. The ground floor area of the dementia unit is now completed and work is about to commence on the first floor of the unit. On completion of this building work it is intended that a major programme of redecoration will be undertaken throughout the home.

What the care home could do better:

In general good standards of personal care are provided for the service users. The service users in the dementia unit looked relaxed in their environment. Whilst social activities are planned, they are generally provided on an ad hoc basis that endeavours to take into account the weather, the service users wishes and their concentration spans. There is not, however, a dedicated programme of activities specifically tailored to the needs of the service users who have dementia. For example, whilst reminiscence is used as part of the therapy, it is not planned as part of a service user`s care planning process. The potentially good standard of the service is unfortunately undermined by elements of poor care practice such as using wheelchairs without footplates and not ensuring that a service user has taken their medication. Other issues such as inoperative equipment in the kitchen, electrical faults and inappropriate equipment in the laundry room further exacerbates the problem and undermines the credibility of the home.

CARE HOMES FOR OLDER PEOPLE Summer Court Hall Residential Home Football Green Hornsea East Yorkshire HU18 1RA Lead Inspector Mr M. A. Tomlinson Key Inspection 27th February 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 Summer Court Hall Residential Home DS0000042750.V330161.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. Summer Court Hall Residential Home DS0000042750.V330161.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 3 SERVICE INFORMATION Name of service Summer Court Hall Residential Home Address Football Green Hornsea East Yorkshire HU18 1RA 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) 01964 532042 Hexon Limited Mrs Susan Ann Tyler Care Home 37 Category(ies) of Dementia - over 65 years of age (12), Old age, registration, with number not falling within any other category (25) of places Summer Court Hall Residential Home DS0000042750.V330161.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 4 SERVICE INFORMATION Conditions of registration: 1. 1 The Home may admit up to 37 service users when the building works are completed and a Certificate of Completion issued under the Building Act 1984 Building Regulation. 6th February 2006 Date of last inspection Brief Description of the Service: Summer Court Hall is located in the seaside town of Hornsea on the coast of the East Riding of Yorkshire, close to all local amenities. It has parking facilities for several vehicles. The home is registered for 25 older people, including people who have dementia, and has been converted to meet the needs of this service user group. The home does not provide nursing care. The accommodation comprises 3 double rooms and 19 singles, which are arranged on both the ground and first floor, with a lift providing easy access for residents. The home provides a choice of communal areas. It is planned to have additional bedrooms built on the first floor of the dementia unit, which will bring the total number of service users who may be accommodated to 37. An application has been made to the CSCI for a variation to the home’s current registration to take into account a planned extension to the existing dementia unit. The current fees for service users range from £342 to £390 a week and are primarily based on the assessed needs of the service user concerned. Summer Court Hall Residential Home DS0000042750.V330161.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 5 SUMMARY This is an overview of what the inspector found during the inspection. This unannounced inspection visit formed an integral part of the annual ‘key inspection’ process for the home undertaken by the Commission for Social Care Inspection (CSCI). Information contained in this report was obtained through discussions with the home’s registered manager, the staff on duty at the time of the visit, five service users and the relatives of three service users. Telephone discussions were also held with two Social Services care coordinators who had placed service users in the home. Reliance was placed on observation of the staff and the support provided for the less able service users. The report also incorporates information provided by the registered manager in the pre-inspection questionnaire. In addition the report includes relevant information obtained by the CSCI prior to, and subsequent to, the inspection visit. A number of statutory records kept by the home were also examined and an inspection of the premises carried out. The report incorporates an investigation into concerns raised by a relative of a service user in relation to the physical standard of the premises. What the service does well: What has improved since the last inspection? Summer Court Hall Residential Home DS0000042750.V330161.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 6 A number of physical improvements have been made to the property during the past year including the installation of a new passenger lift. The ground floor area of the dementia unit is now completed and work is about to commence on the first floor of the unit. On completion of this building work it is intended that a major programme of redecoration will be undertaken throughout the home. What they could do better: Please contact the provider for advice of actions taken in response to this inspection. The report of this inspection is available from enquiries@csci.gsi.gov.uk or by contacting your local CSCI office. The summary of this inspection report can be made available in other formats on request. Summer Court Hall Residential Home DS0000042750.V330161.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 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 Outcomes Statutory Requirements Identified During the Inspection Summer Court Hall Residential Home DS0000042750.V330161.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 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. JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for the following standard(s): 3 Quality in this outcome area is good. Prospective service users are provided with a comprehensive pre-admission assessment that ensures that their needs can be met. This judgement has been made using available evidence including a visit to this service. EVIDENCE: Three care records were inspected and they included documentary evidence that prospective service users had been fully assessed by the home prior to their admission. In many cases these assessments were in addition to assessments provided by a service user’s placing authority. The registered manager had endeavoured to carry out these assessments in the service users own homes. This was confirmed by a relative of a service user who also stated that the home had employed a ‘phased’ admission process by enabling the Summer Court Hall Residential Home DS0000042750.V330161.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 9 service user concerned to visit the home over a period of time. By this approach the manager had minimised any possible problems for the service user and their relatives. It also made the admission of this service user as stress-free as possible. The assessments were reasonably comprehensive and provided adequate information so that a considered decision could be made as to the appropriateness of the planned placement. A recent assessment undertaken on a service user who was admitted on an ‘emergency’ or shortnotice basis was particularly comprehensive with detailed input from health and social care professionals. There was confirmation on the assessments that the service user or their representative had been directly involved in the assessment process. A relative of a service user stated, “She (service user) was introduced to Summer Court over a period of a month. The staff, especially the manager, were very supportive”. Summer Court Hall Residential Home DS0000042750.V330161.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. The overall standard in the provision of personal care for the service users is undermined by shortfalls in safety procedures thereby placing the service users at some level of risk. This judgement has been made using available evidence including a visit to this service. EVIDENCE: All of the service users had been provided with a care plan developed by the home. This was in addition to any care plan provided by an external agency such as the service users’ placing authority. Three care plans developed by the home were examined. The care plans clearly identified the needs of the service users as well as the actions to be taken by the staff to meet those needs. In addition to the service users’ physical needs, the care plans also identified their social and emotional needs and associated behavioural Summer Court Hall Residential Home DS0000042750.V330161.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 11 problems. For example, one service user became agitated if amongst a lot of people or was subjected to a lot of noise. Action had been taken to ensure that this service user was able to spend time on their own in a quiet environment. This was a confirmed by a relative of this service user. From discussions with the staff and an examination of the care plans, it was evident that the staff employed a flexible approach to the provision of care for the service users to take into account their behaviour and anxieties at any particular time. Some of the service users in the dementia unit preferred not to get up until fairly late in the morning. This was respected by the staff who felt to do otherwise would be confrontational and not in the best interest of the service users. The relative of a service user was concerned that on some occasions the service user had not been shaved in the morning. Another relative commented, “They (staff) treat people (service users) as individuals. They give good care. They speak to her (service user) appropriately and talk to her about her past”. The home employed a system of ‘key workers’ whose prime role was to monitor allocated service users to ensure that their needs were being met. The service users’ care records provided confirmation that the key workers had direct involvement in the reviews of the service users’ care plans. The more able service users spoken to were aware of the name of their key worker. The care records contained information of good levels of input and support by health care professionals. The records confirmed that the service users’ healthcare needs had been met. This was confirmed through discussions with service users and their relatives. These relatives also confirmed that the staff spoke to the service users in a respectful but friendly manner. One problem encountered in the dementia (EMI) unit was that a number of the service users would wander uninvited into other service users rooms. This had been resolved by locking the bedroom doors of the service users during the day. This, however, had the effect of restricting service users access to their bedrooms. Comments from service users’ relatives included, “The staff treat him (service user) with respect and he’s never ignored – I’m kept informed by the staff” and “She (service user) has her hair, nails and feet done – I’m really pleased at the way she has settled down”. Comments from social care professionals included, “The E.M.I. Unit in particular cope very well with residents that other homes could not. The residents have a good level of freedom and independence, as they are able to wander unrestricted including in the grounds”. The medication was secured in a locked dedicated drugs trolley that was left in a locked room when not in use. It was observed, however, that the drugs trolley, although locked, was left unattended in the service users’ dining room for a considerable length of time. The drugs trolley was not secured to a wall to prevent it from being removed from the premises. A senior member of staff explained the process for administering medication to the service users. This Summer Court Hall Residential Home DS0000042750.V330161.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 12 process appeared efficient and safe with the medication being administered directly to the service user concerned and the medication signed at the time of administration. It was observed, however, that at the time of the inspection visit the medication of one service user had been left in a plastic pot for them to take with their lunch. In the medication records it indicated that the service user had taken the medication, which at the time was not accurate. Only nominated and properly trained staff were responsible for administering medication. A lockable refrigerator was available for the storage of temperature sensitive medication. The medication record sheets and the medicines returned record were complete and up to date. There was recorded evidence that the medication had been regularly audited to minimise the possibility of errors going unnoticed. Summer Court Hall Residential Home DS0000042750.V330161.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 adequate. Whilst the service users are enabled to be relatively independent, there is little in the way of formal activities specifically tailored to stimulate them. This judgement has been made using available evidence including a visit to this service. EVIDENCE: There was a record of social activities provided for the service users. In several cases, particularly for those service users who had dementia, this was undertaken on a one-to-one basis. These activities were reflected in the respective care record. There was not a set programme of activities but the staff endeavoured to tailor the activities to take into account the service users’ preferences and their concentration span which, in some cases, was relatively short. From the information provided by the home prior to the inspection social activities included a monthly church service, musical therapy, trips out and shopping. Whilst the use of reminiscence to stimulate the service users was used on an informal basis, there was not a planned approach for those Summer Court Hall Residential Home DS0000042750.V330161.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 14 service users with dementia. The staff had received training in dementia care and displayed a good understanding of the process. It was apparent from observation of the service users that they were able to ‘do their own thing’ within the home and that the staff did not ‘fuss’ over them but allowed them to act reasonably independently. This also applied in the dementia unit with the outcome that the service users looked relaxed in their environment. The registered manager, “We don’t force or insist on the residents doing anything they don’t want to as it’s counter-productive”. It was evident from discussions with the service users that the majority receive regular visits from relatives. The relatives of service users spoken to confirmed that they had unrestricted access to the home and were always made to feel welcome by the staff. A relative of a service user said, “ I’m encouraged to go and eat with (service user)”. It was evident from the planned menus that the meals were reasonably varied and provided a balanced and nutritious diet for the service users. There was generally a genuine choice of meals that endeavoured to take into account the preferences of the service users. Some of the choices, however, were very similar such as fish and chips or egg and chips and lasagne or chilli con carne. It was also noted that the service users were provided with semi-skimmed milk. There was no recorded evidence that the advice of a dietician had been sought on the food provided for the service users. Those service users spoken to expressed satisfaction with the meals and relatives of the service users stated, “The food is very good” and “The food is excellent. They’ve got two wonderful cooks”. Those service users accommodated in the Dementia Unit had their meals together with staff in attendance. It was observed that they were able to take their time in eating their meals and that the staff provided assistance in a patient and respectful manner. Summer Court Hall Residential Home DS0000042750.V330161.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. The service users are reasonably protected by the home’s complaints and adult protection procedures. This judgement has been made using available evidence including a visit to this service. EVIDENCE: A complaints procedure was available to the service users and visitors to the home. Reliance was placed, however, on staff and relatives of service users acting as advocates on behalf of the more frail and/or confused service users. Relatives of the service users felt confident that they could discuss any issues or problems with the registered manager. The majority of the staff had received training in Adult Protection including abuse awareness. From discussions with staff members it was evident that they understood the procedure for reporting alleged to suspected cases of abuse. They were also aware of the types and indications of abuse. Summer Court Hall Residential Home DS0000042750.V330161.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, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25 and 26 Quality in this outcome area is adequate. Whilst the overall environment provides the service users with a comfortable and appropriate place in which to live, it is undermined by the lack of suitable equipment in the laundry room and dedicated facilities for a hairdresser. This judgement has been made using available evidence including a visit to this service. EVIDENCE: Externally Summer Court Hall had been maintained to a reasonable standard. To the visitor, however, the flaking paintwork on the external walls gave an initial poor impression, as did the discarded washing machine in the car park area. The old part of the building was accessed via a reception area. This area, along with the communal areas in the old part of the property, had been Summer Court Hall Residential Home DS0000042750.V330161.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 17 retained in a traditional style with dark wooden panelled walls and age appropriate furniture and fittings. One visitor felt that the relatively dark entrance hall gave an impression of dreariness. This was, however, countered by several other visitors and the more able service users who felt that the panelled walls and traditional furniture was in keeping with the age and style of the building. The registered manager stated that it was intended to have the communal areas redecorated on the completion of the planned building works. The home did not have a dedicated room for use by the visiting hairdresser. A service user’s room was, with their permission, used for the purpose of hairdressing. On the day of the inspection visit the older part of the care home was clean, warm and totally free of any offensive odours. Several service users, their relatives and social care professionals confirmed this standard of cleanliness was the norm. It was noted that several of the chairs in the main lounge had seat covers fitted to prevent staining from incontinence. The effect of this was that those service users who had such problems could be readily identified. Those service users who had been assessed as having dementia were accommodated in a relatively new ground floor wing that was accessible via the original part of the property. This area was bright, cheerful, clean and again free from any offensive odours. The furniture was appropriate for the needs of the service users. The design of this area enabled the service users to move around safely without constant supervision from the staff. There was an ‘all-weather’ conservatory that was primarily used as a lounge by the service users particularly those who smoked cigarettes. The registered manager stated that it was the intention to upgrade/replace the conservatory as part of the refurbishment programme. There were also additional seating areas that enabled the service users to choose where, and with whom, they spent their time. The service users also had access to a safe outdoor area that provided reasonable levels of privacy. It is the intention of the Registered Provider to build a first floor extension to this wing following the completion of which a major programme of redecoration will be undertaken. Since the last inspection visit a new passenger lift had been installed to ensure improved levels of reliability. The service users’ bedrooms inspected had been personalised by the occupants through the use of their own furniture and displaying personal ornaments. The bedrooms were decorated to an acceptable standard. In the shared bedrooms privacy screening was available. The majority of the bedrooms had commodes available. These, according to the staff, were emptied and cleaned by the night staff immediately they had been used. It was evident from the presence of door wedges that there were occasions when bedroom doors were wedged open. It was noted that some of the bed-bases were stained and required replacing. According to the cleaner and the more able service users, the bedrooms were cleaned daily and ‘bottomed’ weekly. Summer Court Hall Residential Home DS0000042750.V330161.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 18 The main kitchen was due to be of a commercial standard. At the time of the inspection visit the main cooker was not fully operational and was due to be replaced. During the visit the electrics ‘tripped’ and the main lights went off on several occasions. According to the manager an electrician had been contacted to address this problem. The electrical wiring had been tested and a safety certificate issued. The laundry facilities consisted of two ‘domestic’ washers neither of which had a sluice facility. Whilst there were two commercial standard driers available, neither were working and consequently the laundry person had to rely on the use of a small domestic drier. From a discussion with the laundry person and the service users, it was apparent that a satisfactory laundry process was in place. Relatives of some of the service users also confirmed this. One relative did, however, comment that there had been occasions when items of laundry had been returned to the wrong service user. A range of specialist equipment was available for the staff to assist in handling the service users. A ‘standing hoist’ was used to assist service users get into the upright position from a chair. It was noted that two staff undertook this procedure. The staff confirmed that they had received training in the procedure. It was observed that on two separate occasions wheelchairs were used to transport service users that did not have footplates fitted. Summer Court Hall Residential Home DS0000042750.V330161.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 19 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. An enthusiastic and well-trained staff team support the service users, which enables the service users to lean relatively meaningful lives. This judgement has been made using available evidence including a visit to this service. EVIDENCE: From an examination of the staff roster, it was apparent that there were adequate numbers of staff available both during the day and night time periods. Where necessary, additional staff hours had been negotiated with a service user’s placing authority. The day staffing generally consisted of four care staff, including a senior, two in the Dementia Unit and two in the main building. In addition to this the manager and a number of ancillary staff were also available. There were two waking night staff on duty along with the manager or deputy on-call. The night staff had hand-held pagers so that they could summon assistance without having to leave the scene of an accident/incident. The registered manager provided assurance that the staffing levels will be reviewed to ensure that they remain appropriate for the needs, and numbers, of the service users. Summer Court Hall Residential Home DS0000042750.V330161.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 20 It was evident from the staff records that they had been provided with an opportunity to participate in a range of statutory and professional training courses. These included Adult Protection, abuse awareness, diabetes awareness, health and safety, safe handling of medication, infection control, palliative care, food hygiene, risk assessment and death and dying. The staff had been encouraged to undertake a National Vocational Qualification and over 50 of staff had achieved this. Training had also been planned on the Mental Capacity Act. The staff presented as being enthusiastic and knowledgeable. They demonstrated a good understanding of the service users’ needs and the actions they needed to take in order to meet those needs. They were observed to provide care and support for the service users in a patient and empathetic manner. The staff confirmed that were provided with good support by the manager including the provision of regular supervision sessions. The records indicated that there was a relatively low turnover of staff. The home had an appropriate staff recruitment procedure in place and it was apparent from the home’s records and the pre-inspection questionnaire completed by the manager, that all new staff had been fully vetted. Summer Court Hall Residential Home DS0000042750.V330161.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 21 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, 36 and 38 Quality in this outcome area is good. A well-qualified and experienced management team supports the staff and service users. This judgement has been made using available evidence including a visit to this service. EVIDENCE: The registered manager and the deputy manager had obtained the Registered Manager’s Award. They both had considerable experience in managing a care environment. The manager demonstrated an excellent understanding of the needs of the service users and in particular those elements of care such as Summer Court Hall Residential Home DS0000042750.V330161.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 22 independence and choice that go to provide them with a good quality of life. It was apparent from discussions with the staff that the manager promotes staff involvement in the running and decision-making processes of the home. She had, for example, delegated appropriate tasks to individual members of staff thereby giving them appropriate levels of responsibility. Comments from social care professionals included: “Noticeable improvements have been made since the present registered manager came into post”. It was noted that the management team did not have access to the Internet or Email facilities. This consequently limited their access to the latest information on care services. The home had a Quality Assurance Monitoring process in place. This included undertaking regular audits of the each element of the service provided. There was recorded evidence that service users’ and staff meetings had been held and that the outcomes of these meetings were used as an integral part of the quality assurance cycle. It was the policy of the registered manager that the staff did not take responsibility for service users’ money. Where the home had collected service users’ personal allowances a record had been maintained of this. Two service users were subject to the Power of Attorney and another subject to formal Guardianship. During the inspection visit a number of statutory records, including the medication, accident and fire records, were inspected. These records were complete and up to date. With the exception of those issues identified in the environment section of the report, it was evident that the registered manager had taken appropriate action, including the training of staff, to ensure that the environment was safe for use. Summer Court Hall Residential Home DS0000042750.V330161.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 23 SCORING OF OUTCOMES This page summarises the assessment of the extent to which the National Minimum Standards for Care Homes for Older People have been met and uses the following scale. The scale ranges from: 4 Standard Exceeded 2 Standard Almost Met (Commendable) (Minor Shortfalls) 3 Standard Met 1 Standard Not Met (No Shortfalls) (Major Shortfalls) “X” in the standard met box denotes standard not assessed on this occasion “N/A” in the standard met box denotes standard not applicable CHOICE OF HOME Standard No Score 1 2 3 4 5 6 ENVIRONMENT Standard No Score 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 X X 3 X X N/A HEALTH AND PERSONAL CARE Standard No Score 7 3 8 3 9 1 10 2 11 X DAILY LIFE AND SOCIAL ACTIVITIES Standard No Score 12 2 13 3 14 2 15 2 COMPLAINTS AND PROTECTION Standard No Score 16 2 17 X 18 3 2 3 3 2 3 3 2 2 STAFFING Standard No Score 27 3 28 3 29 3 30 4 MANAGEMENT AND ADMINISTRATION Standard No 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 Score 3 X 3 X 3 3 X 3 Summer Court Hall Residential Home DS0000042750.V330161.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 24 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 OP9 Regulation 13(2) Requirement The staff must verify that a service user has taken their medication at the time of its administration. When not in use the drugs trolley must be secured to a wall to prevent it from being removed. Unauthorised equipment, such as wedges, must not be used to retain doors open as this degrades the fire safety standard of the premises. The registered manager is to seek advice from the Fire safety Officer on this matter. Confirmation is to be provided for the C.S.C.I. that the electrical system is safe and any faults rectified. Appropriate and adequate laundry equipment is to be provided, including a washer with an integral sluice facility, to ensure good standards of hygiene. Wheelchairs must not be used without footplates being fitted in DS0000042750.V330161.R01.S.doc Timescale for action 01/04/07 2 OP19 23(4) 01/04/07 3 OP19 13(4) 01/04/07 4 OP26 16 and 23 01/05/07 5 OP22 13(5) 01/04/07 Page 25 Summer Court Hall Residential Home Version 5.2 order to prevent inadvertent injury to the wheelchair user. 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 1 2. 3. 4. 5. OP10 OP12 OP15 OP16 OP19 Consideration should be given to finding alternatives to locking bedroom doors, which limits access by the occupant. Consideration should be given to developing activities that are both stimulating and meaningful for the service users concerned. Advice should be sought from a dietician regarding the nutritional value and appropriateness of the meals. The complaints procedure should be available in different formats to take into account the service users abilities and understanding. The external aspect of the property should be redecorated. Any unwanted equipment should be removed and not be visible to visitors to the home. Chair coverings should not inadvertently identify a service user who has incontinence problems. Consideration should be given to providing the hairdresser with dedicated facilities. On grounds of hygiene, a service user’s room should not be used for the purpose of hairdressing. An audit should be undertaken of bed-bases and those that are stained should be replaced. Summer Court Hall Residential Home DS0000042750.V330161.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 26 Commission for Social Care Inspection Hessle Area Office First Floor, Unit 3 Hesslewood Country Office Park Ferriby Road Hessle HU13 0QF 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 Summer Court Hall Residential Home DS0000042750.V330161.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 27 - 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!