Inspection on 17/07/08 for Summerlands

This inspection was carried out on 17th July 2008.

CSCI found this care home to be providing an Adequate service.

The inspector found there to be outstanding requirements from the previous inspection report. These are things the inspector asked to be changed, but found they had not done. The inspector also made 5 statutory requirements (actions the home must comply with) as a result of this inspection.

Other inspections for this house

Summerlands 20/07/07

Summerlands 29/06/06

Summerlands 01/02/06

Summerlands 08/07/05

Summerlands 06/01/05

Summerlands 12/07/04

Similar services:

Hillview Farm

Dalewood Respite Care

Orchard,The

REACH Upton Court Road

Fairways

Treloar College

Kestrel House, St Anne`s Opportunity Centre,

Pinta

Extracts from inspection reports are licensed from CQC, this page was updated on 08/11/2008.

CARE HOME ADULTS 18-65 Summerlands 9 Villiers Road Southsea Portsmouth Hampshire PO5 2HG Lead Inspector Nick Morrison Unannounced Inspection 17th July 2008 12:30 Summerlands DS0000011856.V367727.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 1 The Commission for Social Care Inspection aims to: • • • • Put the people who use social care first Improve services and stamp out bad practice Be an expert voice on social care Practise what we preach in our own organisation Reader Information Document Purpose Author Audience Further copies from Copyright Inspection Report CSCI General Public 0870 240 7535 (telephone order line) This report is copyright Commission for Social Care Inspection (CSCI) and may only be used in its entirety. Extracts may not be used or reproduced without the express permission of CSCI www.csci.org.uk Internet address Summerlands DS0000011856.V367727.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 2 This is a report of an inspection to assess whether services are meeting the needs of people who use them. The legal basis for conducting inspections is the Care Standards Act 2000 and the relevant National Minimum Standards for this establishment are those for Care Homes for Adults 18-65. They can be found at www.dh.gov.uk or obtained from The Stationery Office (TSO) PO Box 29, St Crispins, Duke Street, Norwich, NR3 1GN. Tel: 0870 600 5522. Online ordering: www.tso.co.uk/bookshop This report is a public document. Extracts may not be used or reproduced without the prior permission of the Commission for Social Care Inspection. Summerlands DS0000011856.V367727.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 3 SERVICE INFORMATION Name of service Summerlands Address 9 Villiers Road Southsea Portsmouth Hampshire PO5 2HG 023 9283 0682 023 9283 0682 francescabilsland@yahoo.co.uk 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) Mrs Francesca Bilsland Miss Joy Michelle Tremayne Care Home 23 Category(ies) of Learning disability (23) registration, with number of places Summerlands DS0000011856.V367727.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 4 SERVICE INFORMATION Conditions of registration: 1. 2. 3. Service users in the category LD must be at least 40 years of age One service user over 65 years of age can be accommodated. One current, named, service user in the category MD can be accommodated. 20th July 2007 Date of last inspection Brief Description of the Service: Summerlands is a Grade 2 listed building designed by the architect Thomas Owen and built in the 19th century. The interior and exterior of the home have numerous features of architectural interest. The building was converted to provide care/support and accommodation for up to 23 people with a learning disability some time ago and is in need of significant improvement. The home is located close to, and between, Southsea shopping centre and the sea front, promenade and beach. Accommodation is set over four floors and consists of five single and nine double rooms. There is a stair lift between two floors. However, it does not extend to the lounge and dining room level. Therefore, rooms on the upper levels are not suitable for people with mobility difficulties. There is a pleasant walled garden with seating, accessible from the lounge and available for residents’ use. The weekly charge for this service ranges from £336 to £350 and is dependant on the needs of the individual and if they have a single or a shared room Summerlands DS0000011856.V367727.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 5 SUMMARY This is an overview of what the inspector found during the inspection. The quality rating for this service is 1 star. This means the people who use this service experience adequate quality outcomes. This report represents a review of all the evidence and information gathered about the service since the previous inspection. This included a site visit that occurred on 17th July 2008 and lasted five hours. During this time we looked around the premises, looked at the files of four service users, spoke with three of them and observed the support they were receiving. We also met the Manager and the Provider, spoke with one member of staff and observed interaction between staff and service users. All records and relevant documentation referred to in the report was seen on the day of the inspection visit. We also referred to the service’s own self-assessment of the home. What the service does well: What has improved since the last inspection? What they could do better: The environment is very poor. It is badly maintained and is deteriorating significantly. One section of the building is currently out of use because it is Summerlands DS0000011856.V367727.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 6 not safe to use. The environment needs significant investment and attention without further delay. The provider has told us about plans for improving the building and the problems with planning consent. However, at the time of the inspection visit, a formal planning application had not been made. 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. Summerlands DS0000011856.V367727.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 7 DETAILS OF INSPECTOR FINDINGS CONTENTS Choice of Home (Standards 1–5) Individual Needs and Choices (Standards 6-10) Lifestyle (Standards 11-17) Personal and Healthcare Support (Standards 18-21) Concerns, Complaints and Protection (Standards 22-23) Environment (Standards 24-30) Staffing (Standards 31-36) Conduct and Management of the Home (Standards 37 – 43) Scoring of Outcomes Statutory Requirements Identified During the Inspection Summerlands DS0000011856.V367727.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 8 Choice of Home The intended outcomes for Standards 1 – 5 are: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Prospective service users have the information they need to make an informed choice about where to live. Prospective users’ individual aspirations and needs are assessed. Prospective service users know that the home that they will choose will meet their needs and aspirations. Prospective service users have an opportunity to visit and to “test drive” the home. Each service user has an individual written contract or statement of terms and conditions with the home. The Commission consider Standard 2 the key standard to be inspected. JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for the following standard(s): 2 Quality in this outcome are is good This judgement has been made using available evidence including a visit to this service. Service users benefit from having their needs and aspirations assessed prior to moving into the home. EVIDENCE: The home requires a full care management assessment for each person before they move into the home. In addition to this, the home does it’s own comprehensive assessment. Records showed that all assessments were in place prior to the person moving in and that service users and their families had been involved in the assessment. Summerlands DS0000011856.V367727.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 9 Individual Needs and Choices The intended outcomes for Standards 6 – 10 are: 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. Service users know their assessed and changing needs and personal goals are reflected in their individual Plan. Service users make decisions about their lives with assistance as needed. Service users are consulted on, and participate in, all aspects of life in the home. Service users are supported to take risks as part of an independent lifestyle. Service users know that information about them is handled appropriately, and that their confidences are kept. The Commission considers Standards 6, 7 and 9 the key standards to be inspected. JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for the following standard(s): 6, 7 and 9 Quality in this outcome area is good This judgement has been made using available evidence including a visit to this service. Service users benefit from having clear care plans and risk assessments in place and from being supported to make their own decisions. They would benefit further from being involved in regular reviews of their care plans. EVIDENCE: Individual care plans were in place for each person living in the home and were clearly related to the initial assessment and the ongoing information the home had gathered on each person over time. Service users were involved in the care planning process and signed their care plans to say they agreed with them. The home has a system in place for each service user to meet with their Keyworker on a monthly basis in order to review the care plan and the events that had happened over the month to see if any changes were needed to the Summerlands DS0000011856.V367727.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 10 care plan, or if any other action was needed. This is a positive system and is backed by written records of the meetings. At the previous inspection we had made a recommendation that the keyworker meetings should be restarted to enhance the good care planning system in place and promote people’s involvement in the planning for their support needs. This was because, at the time of that inspection, the meetings had not been happening. This recommendation has been addressed in that the meetings were restarted, but during this inspection visit we found that they had become infrequent and not kept up-to-date. The Manager was aware of this and was in the process of reviewing all the care plans. However, service users would benefit from the Keyworker meeting to be fully re-established and maintained on a regular basis. From observation during the inspection it was clear that people living in the home were supported to make their own decisions about their lives. This included day-to-day decisions about what they wanted to eat and what activities they took part in as well as what time they wanted to go to bed and get up. Staff spoken with and observed throughout the inspection demonstrated an understanding of the need to help people make decisions rather than make decisions for them. Care plans were clear about how service users made decisions and about what things were important to them. Risk assessments were clearly written and reviewed on a regular basis. Staff spoken with were clear about risk assessments for each person and the importance of supporting people in line with the risk assessments. Risk assessments were used to promote independence and support people living in the home to be involved safely in the activities they wanted to do. Some people living in the home were able to go out without staff support and this was supported by risk assessments. Summerlands DS0000011856.V367727.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 11 Lifestyle The intended outcomes for Standards 11 - 17 are: 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. Service users have opportunities for personal development. Service users are able to take part in age, peer and culturally appropriate activities. Service users are part of the local community. Service users engage in appropriate leisure activities. Service users have appropriate personal, family and sexual relationships. Service users’ rights are respected and responsibilities recognised in their daily lives. Service users are offered a healthy diet and enjoy their meals and mealtimes. The Commission considers Standards 12, 13, 15, 16 and 17 the key standards to be inspected. JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for the following standard(s): 12, 13, 15, 16 and 17 Quality in this outcome area is good This judgement has been made using available evidence including a visit to this service. Service users benefit from having their rights respected and from balanced and nutritious meals. They also benefit from having the opportunity to engage in a wide range of activities both inside and outside of the home. EVIDENCE: The Manager told us that the home did rely on the fact that service users attended day services where most of their recreational and social needs were addressed. In addition to this there was additional staffing provided in the home on Fridays and Saturdays to ensure that people who needed support were supported to go out. People were supported to take part in activities they had chosen. One person told us he liked to go out and see trains and had been supported to do so on a number of occasions and had also planned with a member of staff to go for a journey on a steam train in the future. Summerlands DS0000011856.V367727.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 12 There was a range of activities planned within the home to ensure that people remained stimulated. On the day of the inspection visit the day services was closed and so staff in the home arranged a games day. There were a number of activities in the home available for people to use either with, or without, support from staff. These included books, videos, games and a computer. There was also a piano in one of the lounges that people could use. We found that there was at least one person living in the home who enjoyed playing the piano. The piano was in need of tuning and we mentioned to the Manager that it could be seen as devaluing to people to provide a piano that was so badly out of tune. People living in the home were supported to maintain contact with their friends and families. Records were kept of visits from families and of people going to stay with families. People were also supported to maintain contact with their families over the telephone and staff assisted them to make telephone calls if necessary. Food in the home was of good quality and people spoken with during the inspection visit said they enjoyed their meals. There was a weekly menu in place that had taken account of the known individual preferences of service users. Service users were able to change their minds and deviate from the menu if they chose to. Summerlands DS0000011856.V367727.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 13 Personal and Healthcare Support The intended outcomes for Standards 18 - 21 are: 18. 19. 20. 21. Service users receive personal support in the way they prefer and require. Service users’ physical and emotional health needs are met. Service users retain, administer and control their own medication where appropriate, and are protected by the home’s policies and procedures for dealing with medicines. The ageing, illness and death of a service user are handled with respect and as the individual would wish. The Commission considers Standards 18, 19, and 20 the key standards to be inspected. JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for the following standard(s): 18, 19 and 20 Quality in this outcome area is good This judgement has been made using available evidence including a visit to this service. Service users benefit from having their healthcare needs met and are protected by the home’s medication policies and practices EVIDENCE: Care plans contained information on how people preferred to be supported with their personal care. The files of people living in the home demonstrated that healthcare needs were monitored and that people were supported to use healthcare services as necessary. There were comprehensive records relating to each person’s health. Each person’s healthcare needs were monitored and recorded on a regular basis. Where people had used healthcare services there were records detailing the time and date, the reason why they attended and any outcomes as a result of the consultation. Staff in the home liaised closely with healthcare professionals in the interests of people living in the home. Service users spoken with said staff always supported them to use healthcare services whenever necessary. Summerlands DS0000011856.V367727.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 14 The system for administering medication in the home was clear and was stated in the home’s policies. Staff who were involved in administering medication said they had received good training and demonstrated that they had a good understanding of medication issues. Medication records were clear and up-todate and all medication was stored appropriately and safely. There was a comprehensive system in place for monitoring medication with regular checks and crosschecking to minimise the possibility of any errors occurring. Summerlands DS0000011856.V367727.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 15 Concerns, Complaints and Protection The intended outcomes for Standards 22 – 23 are: 22. 23. Service users feel their views are listened to and acted on. Service users are protected from abuse, neglect and self-harm. The Commission considers Standards 22, and 23 the key standards to be inspected. JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for the following standard(s): 22 and 23 Quality in this outcome area is good This judgement has been made using available evidence including a visit to this service. Service users benefit from having their views listened to and are protected by the home’s policies and practices. EVIDENCE: The home has a complaints policy in place and service users spoken with said they were clear about how to complain if they wanted to, but had not felt the need to make formal complaints, as issues were resolved in house meetings or in conversation with the manager or their keyworker. No complaints had been received at the home. The complaints procedure was written in an ‘easy read’ format and service users had their own copy. There were behavioural supports plans in place for people whose behaviour occasionally caused problems for other people in the home. The way the plans were written demonstrated a positive approach to such behaviour and that individual service users were involved in the plans put in place for them. Any incidents were recorded. The home has good policies and procedures in place for dealing with allegations or suspicions of abuse. The service user spoken with had some knowledge of their rights and of abuse issues. Summerlands DS0000011856.V367727.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 16 Environment The intended outcomes for Standards 24 – 30 are: 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. Service users live in a homely, comfortable and safe environment. Service users’ bedrooms suit their needs and lifestyles. Service users’ bedrooms promote their independence. Service users’ toilets and bathrooms provide sufficient privacy and meet their individual needs. Shared spaces complement and supplement service users’ individual rooms. Service users have the specialist equipment they require to maximise their independence. The home is clean and hygienic. The Commission considers Standards 24, and 30 the key standards to be inspected. JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for the following standard(s): 24 and 30 Quality in this outcome area is poor This judgement has been made using available evidence including a visit to this service. Service users live in a poor environment that is not well maintained. EVIDENCE: We have made a number of requirements over the past few years relating to the fact that the building is in need of serious improvement. The provider has informed us that she intends to have a major refurbishment of the building and that, in the meantime, she is not in a position to attend to the outstanding building issues as they will be dealt with within the refurbishment. Unfortunately this situation has become protracted and the building is continuing to deteriorate. The provider informs us that this delay has been due to problems with planning consent. At this inspection visit the provider confirmed that she has not yet actually submitted a formal panning application for the improvements she intends to make to the home. Summerlands DS0000011856.V367727.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 17 In the meantime there are building and maintenance issues that are affecting the service provided to people. Given that serious issues in relation to the environment have been highlighted now for three years a Statutory Requirement Notice will be issued regarding this matter. There had been a requirement from the previous inspection for the provider to provide people who use this service with better facilities on the lower ground floor including the refurbishment of the toilets. The provider confirmed that this requirement has not been met. There had been a requirement from the previous inspection that the carpet in the bedroom identified on the lower ground floor must be replaced. The provider confirmed that this requirement has not been met but explained that they had received estimates for the work and were now waiting for a date for the work to be completed. There had been a requirement from the previous inspection that the outlook and light must be improved by the replacement of the obscured glass in the shared bedroom on the lower ground floor. The provider confirmed that this requirement has not been met. The room continues to have the same amount of light as it did at the time of the previous inspection and improvements still need to be made. The level of natural light available in this room was poor. At the time of this inspection visit it was clear that the building continues to deteriorate. We had pointed out to the provider during our inspection of February 2006 that there was a crack in the ceiling above the stairwell. By the time of this current inspection, over two years later, not only had the issue not been addressed, but also the crack had now turned into a three feet diameter gap in the ceiling where the plaster had fallen off. As a result it was no longer safe for people to use the main staircase and it had been blocked off. People now have to use the other smaller staircases in the home. We discussed with the manager and the provider that the level of deterioration in the home needs to be arrested and that improvements need to be made. We also highlighted that there was an apparent urine odour in the building, which was the first thing we noticed on entering. The manager explained that they had been aware of this and had attempted to address it. Information from people’s care plans showed that they had done work with individuals where continence had been highlighted as an issue and records demonstrated that they had initiated input from relevant professionals in order to overcome the problem. The fact that the odour persists appears to be due to the building, Summerlands DS0000011856.V367727.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 18 rather than to individuals, or the support they receive. There are carpets in the building that may need replacing in order to overcome this. A requirement has been made in respect of addressing the odour. The home had not replaced a carpet as required at the previous inspection. Other carpets in the home may also be contributing to the odour and were stained, with the potential for tripping hazards and the provision of carpeting, which was not of a standard to contribute to the provision of a pleasant living environment for service users. During the inspection visit one service user complained to the manager that she was unable to use the communal toilets on the lower floor because they were in such a poor state. The manager did attend to this immediately, but these toilets were not kept very clean and their communal nature compromised the privacy and dignity of people who needed to use them. The door to these toilets was kept open all the time. The toilets were old fashioned, basic and not well kept. The cubicles were difficult to keep clean because they were so old. Through the other side of these toilets was another toilet that was kept locked and was for the use of staff and visitors. This toilet was kept in a better state of repair and provided sufficient privacy for people who were allowed to use it. The home had drawn up a plan and system for planned maintenance required in the home. The plan was clear and addressed the issues in the building but we were informed that this plan is not being adhered to at present because, it was thought that, the issues would be dealt with within the overall refurbishment of the home. There was a maintenance book for reactive maintenance that was required as things went wrong in the home and needed attention. Some of the issues highlighted had been addressed and records were kept. These concentrated on small issues within the home rather than on the fabric of the building. The deterioration of the building is compounded by the fact that cleanliness is in need of improvement. In the kitchen the cooker, grill, deep fat fryer and toaster all need to be cleaned. The cupboards in the kitchen were sticky and need to be cleaned, presenting a risk of infection. There were also chairs throughout the building that had deteriorated to the extent they were uncomfortable to sit on and were very worn. They were in need of repairing or replacing. The building also has an institutional feel about it. Chairs in the lounge areas are all pushed back against the walls and the dining room has rectangular tables set out in an institutional manner. The overall state of the building is poor and it is devaluing for people that they have to live in such surroundings. Summerlands DS0000011856.V367727.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 19 Summerlands DS0000011856.V367727.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 20 Staffing The intended outcomes for Standards 31 – 36 are: 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. Service users benefit from clarity of staff roles and responsibilities. Service users are supported by competent and qualified staff. Service users are supported by an effective staff team. Service users are supported and protected by the home’s recruitment policy and practices. Service users’ individual and joint needs are met by appropriately trained staff. Service users benefit from well supported and supervised staff. The Commission considers Standards 32, 34 and 35 the key standards to be inspected. JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for the following standard(s): 32, 34 and 35 Quality in this outcome area is good This judgement has been made using available evidence including a visit to this service. Service users benefit from being supported by adequate numbers of welltrained staff and are protected by the home’s recruitment policies and practices. EVIDENCE: There was a requirement from the previous inspection that staff employed by the provider must have a CRB check and protection of vulnerable Adults list check. This requirement has now been met. Examination of staff files during this inspection showed that all necessary pre-employment checks were in place prior to people beginning to work in the home. There were two members of staff on duty throughout each part of the day and night. In addition the manager was available during the daytime. Service users spoken with said there were sufficient staff available in the home to meet the needs of the people living there and to ensure that they could go out and use Summerlands DS0000011856.V367727.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 21 local facilities at specific times during the week. Staff also said they felt the staffing was sufficient to meet people’s needs. Staff training was well managed and good records were kept of the training that each member of staff had received, what training they still needed to do and when updates were required. Staff spoken with said the training was useful and relevant to their role and that access to training was good. Discussion with a member of staff on the day of the inspection visit, as well as reference to staff files, demonstrated that all staff received regular support and supervision sessions with the manager and that records were kept of these sessions. We were also told that the manager was always available for advice and support and that staff found her to be very supportive throughout their work. There were clear guidelines in place for staff so that they were aware of what was expected of them. These included Keyworker guidelines and a list of daily jobs that needed to be done. Summerlands DS0000011856.V367727.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 22 Conduct and Management of the Home The intended outcomes for Standards 37 – 43 are: 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. Service users benefit from a well run home. Service users benefit from the ethos, leadership and management approach of the home. Service users are confident their views underpin all self-monitoring, review and development by the home. Service users’ rights and best interests are safeguarded by the home’s policies and procedures. Service users’ rights and best interests are safeguarded by the home’s record keeping policies and procedures. The health, safety and welfare of service users are promoted and protected. Service users benefit from competent and accountable management of the service. The Commission considers Standards 37, 39, and 42 the key standards to be inspected. JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for the following standard(s): 37, 39 and 42 Quality in this outcome area is Adequate This judgement has been made using available evidence including a visit to this service. Service users benefit from living in a well managed service that is responsive to their needs but they live in a poorly maintained building. EVIDENCE: The current manager of the home is managing the home for the second time. She had left last year to take up a different post and another manager had been put in place. Since then, that manager had left and the previous manager had come back. She had been back managing the service for two months at the time of this inspection visit. She is in the process of re-applying to become the Registered Manager of the service. Summerlands DS0000011856.V367727.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 23 It was clear from the inspection visit, and from talking to the provider and the manager, that in the period when the service had been managed by someone else some systems that were previously in place had not been maintained. These included staff support and supervision, service user meetings, monthly keyworker meetings, monthly health and safety checks and the reviewing of care plans. The current manager has begun to address some of these shortfalls and is aware of what needs to be done to ensure that all these systems are brought up-to-date and maintained. There had been a requirement from the previous inspection that a quality assurance system must be put in place to develop and improve the service based on the views of people who use the service and their representatives. This requirement has been addressed; the manager has introduced a quality assurance system. The quality assurance system has not yet been completed, but the manager has begun to implement it. Surveys of people living in the home and other stakeholders have been sent out, returned and analysed. The manager needs to complete the process over the coming months and has plans in place to do so. The manager is clear about managing health and safety within the service and is beginning to bring health and safety management up-to-date. No other health and safety issues were identified as a result of this inspection, with the exception of those referred to the serious issues in the Environment section of this report and the fact that the monthly health and safety checks have not been maintained. Throughout the inspection process the manager demonstrated that she has a good understanding of the service and of the issues that need addressing within the home. There are unmet requirements from the previous inspection, the management systems in the home have not been maintained over the year and management inaction has resulted in people having to continue to live in such a poor environment. Summerlands DS0000011856.V367727.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 24 SCORING OF OUTCOMES This page summarises the assessment of the extent to which the National Minimum Standards for Care Homes for Adults 18-65 have been met and uses the following scale. The scale ranges from: 4 Standard Exceeded 2 Standard Almost Met (Commendable) (Minor Shortfalls) 3 Standard Met 1 Standard Not Met (No Shortfalls) (Major Shortfalls) “X” in the standard met box denotes standard not assessed on this occasion “N/A” in the standard met box denotes standard not applicable CHOICE OF HOME Standard No Score 1 X 2 3 3 X 4 X 5 X INDIVIDUAL NEEDS AND CHOICES Standard No 6 7 8 9 10 Score CONCERNS AND COMPLAINTS Standard No Score 22 3 23 3 ENVIRONMENT Standard No Score 24 1 25 X 26 X 27 X 28 X 29 X 30 1 STAFFING Standard No Score 31 X 32 3 33 X 34 3 35 3 36 X CONDUCT AND MANAGEMENT OF THE HOME Standard No 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 Score 2 3 X 3 X LIFESTYLES Standard No Score 11 X 12 3 13 3 14 X 15 3 16 3 17 3 PERSONAL AND HEALTHCARE SUPPORT Standard No 18 19 20 21 Score 3 3 3 X 2 X 2 X X 2 X Summerlands DS0000011856.V367727.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 25 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 YA24 Regulation 23 Requirement Provide people who use this service with better facilities on the lower ground floor including the refurbishment of the toilets. This requirement is repeated from the last inspection. The carpet in the bedroom identified on the lower ground floor must be replaced. This requirement is repeated from the last inspection. The outlook and light must be improved by the replacement of the obscured glass in the shared bedroom on the lower ground floor. This requirement is repeated from the last inspection. The Provider must provide the Commission with evidence, from a suitably qualified individual, that the building is structurally sound, both internally and externally, and ensures that people live or working in safe surroundings. The Provider must address the issue of the odour in the home. DS0000011856.V367727.R01.S.doc Timescale for action 30/09/08 2. YA24 23 30/09/08 3. YA24 23 30/09/08 4. YA24 23 (2) (b) 30/09/08 5. YA24 23 (2) (p) 30/09/08 Summerlands Version 5.2 Page 26 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 Summerlands DS0000011856.V367727.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 27 Commission for Social Care Inspection Maidstone Office The Oast Hermitage Court Hermitage Lane Maidstone ME16 9NT 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 Summerlands DS0000011856.V367727.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 28 - 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!