Inspection on 27/06/07 for The Ashurst

This inspection was carried out on 27th June 2007.

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

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

Other inspections for this house

The Ashurst 24/01/07

The Ashurst 19/10/05

The Ashurst 06/04/05

The Ashurst 17/11/04

Similar services:

Coopers Mill Ltd

Bramley Avenue (73)

Paradise Lodge

Grangewood

Upaya Ananda

Newton Court (1-2)

Kings Lane (32)

Pemdale

Extracts from inspection reports are licensed from CQC, this page was updated on 08/07/2008.

CARE HOME ADULTS 18-65 Ashurst, The 1 Kirkley Cliff Lowestoft Suffolk NR33 0BY Lead Inspector John Goodship Unannounced Inspection 27th June 2007 09:00 Ashurst, The DS0000059596.V344797.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 Ashurst, The DS0000059596.V344797.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. Ashurst, The DS0000059596.V344797.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 3 SERVICE INFORMATION Name of service Ashurst, The Address 1 Kirkley Cliff Lowestoft Suffolk NR33 0BY 01502 519222 01502 537406 ashurstcarehome@btconnect.com 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) Mr A T Wight Mrs Joanna Louise Jay, Mr Martin Edward Jay Mrs Gillian Elaine Murrell Care Home 19 Category(ies) of Learning disability (19), Learning disability over registration, with number 65 years of age (7) of places Ashurst, The DS0000059596.V344797.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 4 SERVICE INFORMATION Conditions of registration: 1. 1 Five persons, over the age of 65, whose names were made known to the Commission for Social Care Inspection in November 2004. 24th January 2007 Date of last inspection Brief Description of the Service: The Ashurst is a residential care home for 19 people with learning disabilities. The home is located in a residential area of Kirkley south of the coastal town of Lowestoft and is close to the beach, pier, marina, local shops, churches and amenities. The accommodation spans three floors served by a shaft lift. There is one double bedroom, the remaining are single. All bedrooms have a wash hand basin and eight bedrooms have en-suite facilities. The front windows of the home on the first and second floors offer excellent views of the North Sea. The home offers three communal rooms on the ground floor where service users meet friends and relatives, participate in crafts, hobbies or board games or watch television. There is also a small room for private meetings. The fees at the time of inspection ranged from £341.00 to £464.00 per week. Ashurst, The DS0000059596.V344797.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 5 SUMMARY This is an overview of what the inspector found during the inspection. This inspection visit was unannounced and covered the key standards which are listed under each outcome group overleaf. This report includes evidence gathered during the visit together with information already held by the Commission, including a pre-inspection questionnaire completed by the provider. The inspection took place on a weekday and lasted six hours. The manager and the administrator/director were present throughout, together with staff on the two daytime shifts. The inspector toured the home, and spoke to some of the residents, and the staff, both individually and in a group. The inspector also examined care plans, staff records, maintenance records and training records. A questionnaire survey was sent out by the Commission to residents and to relatives. Eight residents responded and three relatives. Five staff surveys were also returned. Their answers to the questions and any additional comments have been included in the appropriate sections of this report. What the service does well: What has improved since the last inspection? The Statement of Purpose and the Service Users’ Guide have been improved to contain all the items of information required by the Regulations. There are Ashurst, The DS0000059596.V344797.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 6 plans to make them available in a format suitable for the residents to understand. The daily care records show a more person-centred approach to the entries, to identify positive features not just the absence of problems. Care plans identify health and personal care issues with strategies for dealing with them. Personal hygiene records are now up-to-date. The frequency of bed linen changes has been reviewed and is now at least weekly. All changes in prescribed medication are recorded on the medicine administration record sheet. No medication had run out. The policy on the protection of vulnerable adults has been be updated in line with the current county policy. Records are kept of the training of staff in protection. Health and safety issues were monitored, and records were up-to-date. 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. Ashurst, The DS0000059596.V344797.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 Ashurst, The DS0000059596.V344797.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): 1,2,3,4,5. Quality in this outcome area is good. Prospective residents can be assured that they will have sufficient information to decide if this home is where they wish to live. The home will also collect information to assure the person that the home can meet their needs. This judgement has been made using available evidence including a visit to this service. EVIDENCE: The Statement of Purpose and the Service User Guide had been updated and completed fully. They now provided all the information required by the regulations in a text format. In particular included now were the terms and conditions of residence, and the fees payable. The manager reported that the home had plans to make a video of the information in these documents so that all existing and new residents could access them in an understandable format. There were 18 residents at the time of the inspection visit, with one vacancy following the death of an elderly resident in May 2007. A new resident had moved into the home in the week of the inspection. A new bedroom was being created from the old office. This was not yet ready to be registered. The manager was aware of the procedure for obtaining registration. Ashurst, The DS0000059596.V344797.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 9 The file for the new resident was examined. It contained the original referral from the local authority in February 2007. Assessments had been received from the referrer, and the manager had also done her own assessment by visiting the person at home and at their day service. The parents had also produced a small book about the person, containing simple, clear and pertinent information about many aspects of their life and needs. The prospective resident had visited the home four times since then. It was recorded that they had interacted with other residents. The various behaviours indicated in the assessments were observed in order to inform the development of the care plan. The file recorded that staff had read the assessments. A keyworker had been assigned to the new resident and would be closely involved in settling them in this week. There was clear guidance for staff on how to handle any difficult behaviour although none had been observed yet. There were now four residents over 65 years of age. This was well within the home’s registration category which permitted up to seven residents over 65 years of age. This category had been requested by the home in 2006 in order to allow the home to continue to care for their residents as they aged. Ashurst, The DS0000059596.V344797.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 10 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): 6,7,8,9,10. Quality in this outcome area is good. Comprehensive assessments are made of the needs of service users. These are regularly reviewed with the person and their relatives. Staff show service users respect and treat them with dignity, ensuring privacy. This judgement has been made using available evidence including a visit to this service. EVIDENCE: Two care plans were examined. One was created shortly after their admission. It was reviewed six months later, with the resident and the referring authority invited. The other had been reviewed in 2006 and would be reviewed again this year. There were guidelines for staff on helping one person with their self-control, and there was a good description of what triggered episodes of what staff had Ashurst, The DS0000059596.V344797.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 11 described as “bad temper” and how to avoid the situations arising, or how to de-escalate when it happened. There were other risk assessments in care plans covering internal and outside situations. One plan recorded the progress one resident had made in their personal care and hygiene. It also gave staff guidance on using distraction and re-direction techniques to avoid or reduce unsocial behaviour. Another record showed how staff had supported a resident with behavioural problems, and how this behaviour had improved. The plans covered all appropriate areas of daily living including day activities, preferences, health care, and a personal hygiene record. Entries in the daily record had improved with more positive comments and enough information to give a good picture of a twenty-four hour period in the resident’s life. Examples were seen of residents taking decisions about their lives, such as going out to Norwich for the day on their own, choosing not to go to their day activity, choosing what clothes to wear each day. One resident who had been sharing a room asked to have their own room. This was possible as two rooms had been shared, one as the bedroom, the other as the sitting room. The healthcare needs of the other resident had in any case caused the home to review where this person should be and they would be offered an alternative room. Buffet style breakfasts had been introduced allowing residents to choose what they ate and to serve themselves as much as they were able. Ashurst, The DS0000059596.V344797.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 12 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): 11,12,13,15,16,17. Quality in this outcome area is good. Residents are supported to take part, individually and in groups, in many day and evening activities, inside and outside the home. They are helped to maintain family links, and their wishes are respected. Residents are supported to eat well both inside and outside the home. This judgement has been made using available evidence including a visit to this service. EVIDENCE: Many of the residents attended day centres. Some, because of their age or expressed choice, stayed in the Home. The staff tried to encourage them to go out shopping, or walking, or for lunch, to keep healthy. One resident was able to go the shops and the bank on their own. Two residents were leaving the home as the inspector arrived to go into town, with support from a staff member. During the day, another resident went out unaccompanied to do some shopping. One resident explained to the inspector what they had done Ashurst, The DS0000059596.V344797.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 13 that day, and showed a wood engraving that they had completed previously. They said they enjoyed going to this centre. Another resident had said in their questionnaire that they liked to go out over the road to Claremont Pier. The home had a communications book which each resident took to their day activity, for the home and the centres to pass messages of incidents or particular matters concerning that day. The home ran its own day service in a local hall for eight of its residents who were not able to access council-funded centres. The home had started to introduce a ‘Lifestyle’ book for each resident. These were completed by each keyworker with the resident. The contents included About me, my family, my room, what I do, holidays, likes and dislikes, looking after myself, keeping me safe, communication. Although this information was in the care plan, these books put it in a more personalised and residentfriendly format. The manager described how two residents had formed an intimate relationship. The home had a policy on sexual relationships which emphasised respect, privacy and dignity for those involved. In this case, the manager had discussed it with the nearest elative of one of the residents, and with the GP. Staff had been given guidance on maintaining confidentiality. Two residents were funded by the referring authority for one-to-one support for part of the week. Both needed support for behavioural issues, although progress was being made. Care records described the need for support with personal care, with guidance for staff on distraction and redirection techniques. The manager said that ten residents went to church regularly. One relative felt that they could be kept more in touch when things happened, but other relatives were happy that the home always kept them in touch with important issues affecting their relative. In the pre-inspection questionnaire, all residents who replied said that they always or usually liked the meals. During the week, the main meal was taken in the evening. During the inspection, those residents in the house had a snack lunch in the dining room, which they said they were enjoying. The day centre had given nutrition advice, and staff encouraged residents to eat healthily. However, in the end the staff were clear that it was the resident’s choice what they ate. The menu showed that there was always a choice of main course and desserts for the evening meal which was the main meal of the day. A relative commented “They make sure there is good food and the right diet.” Ashurst, The DS0000059596.V344797.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 14 Ashurst, The DS0000059596.V344797.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 15 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): 18,19,20,21. Quality in this outcome area is good. Personal healthcare needs including specialist health, nursing and nutrition requirements are clearly recorded, with guidance for staff, to ensure that residents’ needs are met. Residents are protected by the home’s medication policy and procedures. This judgement has been made using available evidence including a visit to this service. EVIDENCE: Care plans recorded contacts with NHS services. The community nurse had been visiting two residents regularly to advise on their eating problems. The continence adviser was assisting the home with one elderly resident. None of the residents had charge of their own medication. A check of the Medication Administration record charts showed that all administrations had been signed for. All lotions and creams were identified to a resident. Stock levels of a sample of drugs tallied with the amount dispensed since the last delivery. Ashurst, The DS0000059596.V344797.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 16 The home had been able to care for an elderly resident during their last days without the need for them to remain in hospital. This person had stopped taking food and fluids in hospital so it had been agreed that it was appropriate for them to return to the home for terminal care. Following their death, a tribute service had been held at a local church. Several residents attended and some played a part in the tributes. Ashurst, The DS0000059596.V344797.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 17 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): 22,23. Quality in this outcome area is good. Residents can be assured that their views will be listened to, and acted upon. There is a proper policy, procedure and training programme in place to give residents confidence that they are protected from abuse. This judgement has been made using available evidence including a visit to this service. EVIDENCE: Although the home had a formal complaint recording book, no complaints had been received in the previous twelve months. None had been received by the Commission. All the residents who replied to the questionnaire said that they knew who to speak to if they were not happy. All the staff replies confirmed that they were aware of the home’s complaints procedure. The policy on the protection of vulnerable adults had been updated to include the latest Suffolk County Council procedure. The training of staff in this area was done by the manager through staff meetings. Minutes of these meetings, and discussion with staff confirmed this. All staff who completed the survey said that they were aware of the home’s complaints policy, and had received training in the home’s abuse policy. Ashurst, The DS0000059596.V344797.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 18 All staff appointments were subject to checks with the POVA list and the Criminal Records Bureau. Ashurst, The DS0000059596.V344797.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 19 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): 24,25,26,27,28,30. Quality in this outcome area is good. Residents can be assured that they live in a safe and well-maintained home, and that they will be encouraged to personalise their rooms as much as they wish. This judgement has been made using available evidence including a visit to this service. EVIDENCE: The opening that had been made last year from the dining room had now been finished off, with the wood painted and the rough sides plastered. The room opposite, looking out to the front, had been prepared as a multi-purpose room, principally for residents, but also for staff meetings and training, and for meetings with relatives. A double doorway had been made from this room to allow light from the bay window to lighten the dining room. The home had an Ashurst, The DS0000059596.V344797.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 20 on-going programme of redecoration which was being undertaken by the maintenance man. Rooms were well-furnished and showed individuality in the décor and personal items. One resident had a large collection of model cars and trains, including a track layout on the table. Two residents had been sharing two rooms between them for several years, using one as a shred bedroom, and the other as a sitting room. One of these residents had recently asked to stop sharing and had reverted to using one room. This request had coincided with the home’s concern about the level of need of the other resident. This was changing because of medical and behavioural issues. An empty room had been redecorated with new flooring, and they would be moving in shortly. Other rooms and bathrooms continued to meet the standards. An additional bedroom was being created downstairs at the front, following the move of the office. This was not yet ready to be registered. Following a comment from a relative at the previous inspection, bed linen was now changed at least weekly. The fridge in the kitchenette on the top floor had now been defrosted, and the residents who used it now kept their food in covered containers. One of the residents explained this to the inspector. Ashurst, The DS0000059596.V344797.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 21 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): 32,33,34,35,36. Quality in this outcome area is good Residents and relatives can be assured that residents’ needs will be met by the numbers and skill mix of staff and that the home will provide training to ensure that the staff are competent to do their jobs. This judgement has been made using available evidence including a visit to this service. EVIDENCE: The home had no vacancies at the time of the inspection, and had not needed to appoint new staff since April 2006. Previous inspections had confirmed that the home had a safe recruiting procedure. Twelve staff out of fourteen possessed NVQ Level 2 or above. All staff were trained to administer medication. Certificates were available in their files. Six staff had done a course in dementia awareness. No certificates had yet been received but staff were able to describe the course. Ashurst, The DS0000059596.V344797.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 22 Training records showed the range of course that staff had attended, including the Unisafe training, and disability and equality. Staff cover was normally three carers on during the day, with one sleep-in at night. The home was funded for an extra 14 hours per week, and 22.5 hours per week for two residents. The manager said that an extra member of staff had been rostered for that week because of the new admission. This would allow the new person to receive as much support as they needed to settle in. Staff supervisions were recorded, and staff confirmed that these sessions took place regularly. The manager had developed a contract for supervision which was good practice. Ashurst, The DS0000059596.V344797.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 23 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): 37,38,39,40,41,42,43. Quality in this outcome area is good. There is appropriate leadership providing staff with guidance and direction to ensure that residents receive consistent good care. The health, safety and welfare of people using this service is being promoted. This judgement has been made using available evidence including a visit to this service. EVIDENCE: The registered manager was responsible for the management of care, supported by one of the owners who undertook administrative, maintenance and budgeting responsibilities. The home had a full-time maintenance person. Staff responding to the questionnaires all agreed that it was a well run home. Staff confirmed that staff meetings were held. The inspector was told that formal residents’ meetings were not held, as the manager said she found it Ashurst, The DS0000059596.V344797.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 24 much more productive to chat to them in the dining room during the evening meal, or even better to talk to them individually. The manager described the methods by which she and the owners assured the quality of the service. These included staff supervision and appraisal, staff meetings and training, regular updating of care plans with the resident and external professionals, discussions with residents on specific topics such as a new resident, Christmas activities, and changes to the house. The home now had a full-time maintenance person who could act on any request from a resident about repairs. A questionnaire about the choice of food had recently been sent out and action taken to meet the comments. Care plans were kept up-to-date and were securely locked away. Maintenance and fire log records were examined. These were up-to-date, including fire alarm testing, equipment checking, hot water temperatures and portable Appliance testing. The accident record contained details of three accidents in twelve months. One was a trip, one a slip, and one was a kick by a resident on another. Following a discussion at the previous inspection, the manager said that ironing no longer took place in the communal sitting room. There was a small whiteboard in the Hall to record who had gone out. Some residents were able to write their own names here. The appropriate Registration and insurance certificates were displayed in the home. Ashurst, The DS0000059596.V344797.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 25 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 3 2 3 3 3 4 3 5 3 INDIVIDUAL NEEDS AND CHOICES Standard No 6 7 8 9 10 Score CONCERNS AND COMPLAINTS Standard No Score 22 3 23 3 ENVIRONMENT Standard No Score 24 3 25 3 26 3 27 3 28 3 29 X 30 3 STAFFING Standard No Score 31 X 32 3 33 3 34 3 35 3 36 3 CONDUCT AND MANAGEMENT OF THE HOME Standard No 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 Score 3 3 3 3 3 LIFESTYLES Standard No Score 11 3 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 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Ashurst, The DS0000059596.V344797.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 26 NO 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. Standard Regulation Requirement Timescale for action 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. Refer to Standard YA35 Good Practice Recommendations Ashurst, The DS0000059596.V344797.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 27 Commission for Social Care Inspection Suffolk Area Office St Vincent House Cutler Street Ipswich Suffolk IP1 1UQ 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 Ashurst, The DS0000059596.V344797.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!