Inspection on 29/06/06 for The Coppice

This inspection was carried out on 29th June 2006.

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 found no outstanding requirements from the previous inspection report, but made 6 statutory requirements (actions the home must comply with) as a result of this inspection.

Other inspections for this house

The Coppice 13/04/07

The Coppice 15/11/05

The Coppice 04/05/05

The Coppice 17/02/05

The Coppice 05/04/04

The Coppice 11/02/04

Similar services:

Clover House

Parkside

Park Lodge

Mere Hall View

St Bonaventures

Hudson Road

Whitewalls

Home Farm

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

CARE HOME ADULTS 18-65 The Coppice 51 Wellington Road Altrincham Cheshire WA15 7RQ Lead Inspector Michelle Moss Unannounced Inspection 29th June 2006 11:15 The Coppice DS0000005606.V287821.R01.S.doc Version 5.1 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 The Coppice DS0000005606.V287821.R01.S.doc Version 5.1 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. The Coppice DS0000005606.V287821.R01.S.doc Version 5.1 Page 3 SERVICE INFORMATION Name of service The Coppice Address 51 Wellington Road Altrincham Cheshire WA15 7RQ 0161 929 4178 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) Elizabeth Fitzroy Support Care Home 7 Category(ies) of Learning disability (6), Learning disability over registration, with number 65 years of age (1) of places The Coppice DS0000005606.V287821.R01.S.doc Version 5.1 Page 4 SERVICE INFORMATION Conditions of registration: 1. One named individual currently accommodated has a learning disability and is also over pensionable age. 15th November 2005 Date of last inspection Brief Description of the Service: The Coppice is a detached brick built property and is in keeping with others in the road. The home provides accommodation with personal care for 7 people with a learning disability. It is situated near to a local school and there are traffic calming measures in the area. The house is divided into two properties with an inter-connecting door. The main body of the house provides accommodation for five residents. There is a semi-independent living arrangement for two male residents in the annex. There are large secluded rear gardens and parking. The laundry facilities for the home are situated in the detached garage at the rear of the property. The home has its own minibus, which affords the residents access to day care, local colleges, recreational facilities, and places of interest. Fees are calculated on an individual basis based on individual’s needs. The home’s inspection reports are made available to service users, families and professional on request. A copy of the home’s Statement of Purpose and Service Users Guide is always made available to read at the home. The Coppice DS0000005606.V287821.R01.S.doc Version 5.1 Page 5 SUMMARY This is an overview of what the inspector found during the inspection. The inspector went to the home without telling them she was going to visit on the morning of Thursday 29th June 2006 and stayed for over 3 hours. During the visit to the home the inspector: • Spoke with the staff on duty. • Spoke with the manager. • Met some of the service users. • Looked at some service users care plan records. • Looked around the home. To help the inspector to write this report the home provided a self-assessment report /questionnaire which was received on 13th July 06 and completed by the manager. This report has also taken into account other information, which the Commission knew about the home. There were some important things the inspector wanted to find out about the care given by the home. These were: • • • • How the health needs of service users were met. How the personal care needs of service users were being met. How the staff helped to kept service users safe and promoted community involvement. How the home respected the service user’s rights, diversity and identity. The inspection only looked at a limited number of standards, so this report should be read together with the earlier report to get a full picture of how the home is meeting the needs of the service users living there. What the service does well: These are some of the good things that the home was found to be doing well. Things that service users indicated they liked about the home through a questionnaire sent to them from the Commission. • The staff always met care needs • The service users knew how to raise a concern. • They felt they received enough information about the home and their care. • That staff are always available when service users needed them. All these things showed that the service users were given information, knew about the care plans, had their care needs met and that they liked living at Coppice. The Coppice DS0000005606.V287821.R01.S.doc Version 5.1 Page 6 • The service users were seen to be treated as individuals and the staff team provided care that reflected the service users rights and preserved their dignity and privacy. This meant that the staff team understood the importance of respecting and seeing the house as the service users home. The staff had been trained in meeting the care needs of service users. This showed that the staff team were sufficiently skilled to meet the everyday needs of service users, which in turn meant the service users health and their welfare was safeguarded. • What has improved since the last inspection? • The care of service user’s medication was better. This helped the staff to understand about what medication was prescribed to service users and why it was important to kept service users healthy. The home had started to investigate ways in which they could monitor the quality of the service. This included asking service users and stakeholders what they thought about the service. This helped the organisation to make positive improvements within the service, which had been done through a consultative approach. The home had improved the monitoring of the service users care plans. This meant the staff team were more informed about the updated needs of service users. The care plan had lots of information about the service users preferences, personal history, including their favourite things they liked to do, wear and eat. This helped the staff to be better informed about individual service users overall preferences and respected the things important to them. • • • What they could do better: • The care plans needed to be better organised for easier access to information. This would help staff to be certain that they were following the right care plan to meet the needs of service users. The care plan needed to have more details about the changing health needs of service users, which needed to be easily accessible to all staff. This would ensure that the staff team supporting the service users were adequately informed how best to keep all service users healthy. Risk assessments needed to cover health problems affecting service users weight and dietary needs. Also assessments were needed to justify using bedrails. By ensuring these assessments were in place, it meant • • The Coppice DS0000005606.V287821.R01.S.doc Version 5.1 Page 7 the service users health and safety were being assessed and that the action required could be accessed and understood by staff. The home needed to be better managed/maintained in the following areas:• Overall decoration. • Having cookers that were clean and safe to use. • Kitchen units that were not damaged. • Carpets free from strains. • Bathroom free from an unpleasant odour. By improving these weaknesses in the premises it would mean the service users would live in a home which was safe, hygienic and maintained to a good standard of decoration. The home needed to make sure the First Aid stock was all in date. This was important so that the health of service users did not become affected by the home using dressings which were no longer effective in preventing infection. 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 Coppice DS0000005606.V287821.R01.S.doc Version 5.1 Page 8 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 The Coppice DS0000005606.V287821.R01.S.doc Version 5.1 Page 9 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 at least once during a 12 month period. JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for the following standard(s): 2 Quality in this outcome area is good. This judgement has been made using available evidence including a visit to this service. The service users changing needs were assessed and recorded in order to ensure the staff continued to have the information that told them how best to meet service users individualised needs. EVIDENCE: The home had a static service user group, which had not changed for several years. Part of the home’s continuous care included reviewing service users care needs. This included completing an annual review between the home, the service user and their funding authority. Service users indicated in the questionnaire they completed that they were given information about the home. The Coppice DS0000005606.V287821.R01.S.doc Version 5.1 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 at least once during a 12 month period. JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for the following standard(s): 6, 7, 9 Quality in this outcome area is adequate. This judgement has been made using available evidence including a visit to this service. Service users needs were recorded in a care plan that was individual to the specific user. However, these were not in a format, which ensured up to date information could be easily accessed. This had the potential to compromise service users health, safety and well-being due to staff not being able to access information about service users changing needs. EVIDENCE: From examining a sample of service users plans it was evident that a great deal of work had been completed in improving the overall care plan. The plans had risk assessments, including manual handling assessments and various risk assessments that related to service users daily living, health and welfare. The home was moving towards a more person centred approach through the use of essential life style plans / person centred workbooks which were supported by pictorial aids to assist the service user to be as much as possible involved in their plan. The service users all indicated in their questionnaires that they had been told about their support plan. An ‘OK’ health plan was The Coppice DS0000005606.V287821.R01.S.doc Version 5.1 Page 11 included in the care plan which informed on the assessed health of the service user which helped to inform the essential life style plan. However, what had emerged in the home’s attempts to improve the care plan was that the home had created three different care plans which were all running side by side. These were a combination of an essential life plan, person centred workbooks and support plans. The various plans covered details such as ‘what was essential to the service users’, ‘significant things in the life of the service user’, ‘health needs’, ‘the service user’s favourite things to do’ and ‘things the service user liked to wear’. As service users needs were changing the staff would up date one of these three plans. However not the same plan each time. This resulted in all three plans being inconsistent about the care needs of the service user. The home needed to review all three plans and determine which one plan provided the right level of detail and care assessment that informed staff on how best to meet their needs. Risk assessments were also found not to link with the various plans including meeting personal care, weight, eating and drinking. These weaknesses had the potential to compromise the well-being and health of the service users. For example, areas that needed to be considered when shaving service users and risk factors about dietary needs. Other aspects of welfare and safety were also missing in managing risk. This included the need to assess the use of bedrail guards and the use of gate on the stairs which imposed restrictions on the movement of service users. The plans carried details about meeting diverse needs including cultural and religious needs and recognising the importance of possessions in the service user’s life. The Coppice DS0000005606.V287821.R01.S.doc Version 5.1 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 at least once during a 12 month period. JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for the following standard(s): 12, 13, 15, 16, 17 Quality in this outcome area is good. This judgement has been made using available evidence including a visit to this service. All service users were supported to maintain positive family links and were positively helped to access their local community. Also, their dietary needs were recorded and staff practices ensured service users’ rights and privacy were respected. These all meant that lifestyles were individually respected. EVIDENCE: Through the person centred workbook the service users preferences, social needs and likes and dislikes including food were covered. These were found to be informative and provided information to staff about things which the service users themselves considered important. For example, the importance of always wearing a watch or wearing medals. Others were about being able go out and have a social drink and having money to enjoy themselves. Some service users attended the organisation’s day care service and others choice to be supported by the home to access social and leisure activities. Within the home, people had access to the television and music. Staff used The Coppice DS0000005606.V287821.R01.S.doc Version 5.1 Page 13 the home’s minibus to support service users to access activities in the community. There was an open visiting policy at the home and service users were supported to maintain relationships with family and friends. Some service users care plans included family trees and details about significant life events. Each week service users were consulted over meals. The decisions reached for the first choices were recorded. The approach for offering other choices was then completed on a daily basis where service users were asked if they still wanted the first choice or an alternative. When service users indicated they wanted something else the staff would then offer a further 2 choices. The staff had in their attempts to consult more with service users completed a satisfaction survey about meals. On examining the findings it was noted that all service users had indicated being happy with the food being provided by the home. The Coppice DS0000005606.V287821.R01.S.doc Version 5.1 Page 14 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 at least once during a 12 month period. JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for the following standard(s): 18, 19, 20 Quality in this outcome area is adequate. This judgement has been made using available evidence including a visit to this service. The service users’ overall health needs were being met including receiving access to health services. However, a potential weaknesses in the recording of changing health needs of service users meant the staff were not always provided with all the necessary information to ensure they could meet the current health needs of service users. EVIDENCE: Interactions observed between staff and service users were found to be sensitive and respectful. Service users preferences in the way they wished to be supported by staff were recorded in the different care plans. From case tracking two of the service users plans evidence on personal care preferences were detailed. Examples included how the service user wanted their personal care needs to be met e.g. provided by either a male or female and having “someone to shave me that knows me” From joint work completed with the Learning Disability Community Health team and GP’s the home had ensured all service users had included in their care plan an ‘OK’ Health Check record. All service users indicated in their questionnaire that they knew about their ‘OK’ Health Check. This detailed document assessed the health needs of the service users and identified where additional health care / support was required. In addition to the health The Coppice DS0000005606.V287821.R01.S.doc Version 5.1 Page 15 assessments all service users had an annual health check with their GP and accessed the appropriate health screening relative to their gender and age. However, although these good practices were commendable, as previously indicated in the report, the care plans were not consistent in information about service users care needs. This was found to include health needs. For example, from case tracking one service user’s care plan information about their risk of choking when eating and the need to monitor their weight and why this was important varied in instructions between the three plans. These concerns were discussed with the manager. This included ensuring that staff were able to access the most up to date health advice, have sufficient information about the risks and the steps necessary to ensure the service user’s health needs were met. This extended to risk factors associated with choking and weight loss being recorded. Appropriate arrangements were in place for the care of medicines. This included having within the care plan details on when to administer ‘As and when required’ (PRN) medication, which confirms why medication was prescribed and in what circumstances the PRN medication should be given. The Coppice DS0000005606.V287821.R01.S.doc Version 5.1 Page 16 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 at least once during a 12 month period. JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for the following standard(s): 22, 23 Quality in this outcome area is good. This judgement has been made using available evidence including a visit to this service. The service users’ views were listened to and acted on. Policies and procedures and training programmes were in place which ensured that service users were safeguarded from all forms of abuse. EVIDENCE: The manager was able to confirm awareness of the good practices required in procedures and recruiting new staff. This included ensuring that all staff employed were suitable to work with vulnerable adults and making sure that a CRB (Criminal records Bureau)/ POVA (Protection of Vulnerable Adults) first checks were completed prior to staff commencing employment. The records of one newly appointed staff were examined which confirmed these checks had taken place. The key training provided to staff included POVA. From examining a sample of staff training records and information provided in the pre inspection questionnaire sent into the commission it was noted that all staff were required to complete this training. Information on making a complaint was included in the care plan. This was designed in a way in which service users were informed about the process including having pictorial symbols. Furthermore, service users all indicated in their questionnaires that they knew who to talk to if they had any worries or concerns. The manager confirmed that the home had not received any formal complaints in the past 12 months from either service users or relatives. The Coppice DS0000005606.V287821.R01.S.doc Version 5.1 Page 17 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 at least once during a 12 month period. JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for the following standard(s): 24, 25, 30 Quality in this outcome area is poor. This judgement has been made using available evidence including a visit to this service. Service Users were able to accommodate their possessions, pursue their chosen interests/activities and were offered sufficient privacy. Furthermore, the premises were being kept in an adequate stated of cleanliness. However, these areas of good practice were weakened by the poor condition of cooking equipment/facilities, quality of carpets, general decoration and an unpleasant odour. All these weaknesses had the potential to compromise the service users’ health, safety and comfort. EVIDENCE: The manager confirmed that service users with the support of the staff were encouraged to personalise their bedrooms and to have as many things in their bedrooms which gave them pleasure. This included having important possessions, e.g. photographs of families and religious symbols and music systems. A tour of the premises was conducted. This included visiting a sample of bedrooms due to previous concerns regarding cleanliness of the rooms. Overall the rooms were found to be clean. However, some areas of the bedrooms had wallpaper peeling away from the wall, paintwork was marked/damaged and The Coppice DS0000005606.V287821.R01.S.doc Version 5.1 Page 18 carpets were sufficiently stained that on first glace their markings could not be seen. All these things negatively affected the overall appearance of the room. The main kitchen was generally clean and tidy. However, on checking the oven it was found to have a layer of grease mixed with old food deposits on the glass door and the bottom of the oven. Also, on touching the oven door the glass unit was moving on contact. This had the potential to cause an injury due to it being unstable. The manager confirmed that due to the glass being unsafe the oven was not being used. Part of the home entitled “The Lodge” was also visited. This was aimed at the semi-independent service users. On touring the kitchen area a number of concerns were raised. There were a number of broken units and overall appearance of the units looked worn and dirty. The oven like the main kitchen had a layer of grease and old food deposits that covered both the glass door panel and bottom of the oven. Also the sink was heavy stained. A base unit plinth had been removed and left on the floor. This had the potential to be a tripping hazard. On leaving the kitchen area the carpet from the lodge to the upstairs was worn and frayed. At the top of the stairs a light fitting was missing two of the glass covers. The ceiling with heavily marked and required a coat of paint. The ground floor toilet / shower room had an odour which required investigating. A number of areas of the corridor near to the entrance had damaged plaster and parts of the paintwork marked. The manager completed the tour of the premises with the inspector and acknowledged that the above issues required attention and stated that a capital bid had been made for redecorating the home and to fit a new kitchen in the lodge. It was highlighted that the organisation needed to address all the above weaknesses within a shot timescale to ensure the potential risks of each area did not have an adverse affect on the health, safety and comfort of the service users. The Coppice DS0000005606.V287821.R01.S.doc Version 5.1 Page 19 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 at least once during a 12 month period. JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for the following standard(s): 32, 34, 35 Quality in this outcome area is good. This judgement has been made using available evidence including a visit to this service. There were good practices in staff training and staffing levels which reflected the needs of the service users. This meant that there were adequate staff to make sure service users were well cared for and their welfare protected. EVIDENCE: At a previous inspection, staff morale had been found to be low. As a result the organisation had taken steps to improve staff morale including completing a team building day. Also, following recruitment of new staff the numbers of staff who were familiar with the needs of service users had increased which again had helped improve the effectiveness of the team. A sample of staff files were examined. These were found to contain all required details about the staff including, a photo ID, references, confirmation that a CRB had been completed, induction and training records plus copies of all certificates. Training had improved at the home with records showing that staff had in the past 12 months received training on Health & Safety, POVA, Medication/Infection Control, Moving & handling, First Aid and Fire safety. The Coppice DS0000005606.V287821.R01.S.doc Version 5.1 Page 20 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 at least once during a 12 month period. JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for the following standard(s): 37, 39, 42 Quality in this outcome area is adequate. This judgement has been made using available evidence including a visit to this service. The organisation were making positive improvements within the service by consulting with service users and having overall good health and safety measures in place. However, this was slightly compromised by the insufficient monitoring of the stock carried in the First Aid boxes that meant that service users health could be compromised. EVIDENCE: The manager was seen to have a good rapport with service users and found to be conversant with the various different responsibilities required in managing the service. Overall, areas of health and safety were found to be good and work had commenced on establishing a quality assurance system. Already service users views had been sought regarding meals. Further surveys were planned after which the manager was aware of the necessity to complete an annual report of the surveys findings. The senior management of the organisation were visiting the home monthly and were completing reports of their visits and findings. The Coppice DS0000005606.V287821.R01.S.doc Version 5.1 Page 21 The fire records and other health and safety checks examined during the site visit were found to be comprehensive and well maintained, expect for the First Aid boxes. On exampling two of the boxes several items were found to have exceeded the manufactures recommended used by date. In some instances the item was out of date by 4 years. The manager was alerted to these findings and advised to complete a urgent audit of all stock held and replace with new stock to avoid any possibility of outdated dressings being used on a service user. The Coppice DS0000005606.V287821.R01.S.doc Version 5.1 Page 22 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 3 26 X 27 X 28 X 29 X 30 2 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 2 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 2 3 X 3 X 3 X X 2 X The Coppice DS0000005606.V287821.R01.S.doc Version 5.1 Page 23 Are there any outstanding requirements from the last inspection? No 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 YA6 Regulation 15(1) Requirement In keeping the care plan under review the home must ensure it is maintained in an order in which staff can easily access information. To ensure unnecessary risks to the health or safety of service users are identified and so far as possible eliminated risk assessments must cover: • Health problems affecting service users weight and dietary needs. • The use bedrails. • The use of a stair gate. Timescale for action 31/08/06 2. YA9 13 31/08/06 3. YA19 15 4. YA24 23 The care plan must have 31/08/06 sufficient details in respect of the service user’s health that informs staff about their changing needs. 31/08/06 The provider must ensure the premises are:• Kept in a good state of internally repair. • Equipment used in the home is maintained to a good working order/repair. • Kept clean and reasonably decorated DS0000005606.V287821.R01.S.doc Version 5.1 Page 24 The Coppice 5. 6. YA30 YA42 16 23 The provider must ensure the home is free from offensive odours. The home must ensure the First Aid boxes are checked regular and dressing are all within the date to avoid spread of infection. 31/07/06 31/07/06 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 The Coppice DS0000005606.V287821.R01.S.doc Version 5.1 Page 25 Commission for Social Care Inspection CSCI, Local office 9th Floor Oakland House Talbot Road Manchester M16 0PQ National Enquiry Line: 0845 015 0120 Email: enquiries@csci.gsi.gov.uk Web: www.csci.org.uk © This report is copyright Commission for Social Care Inspection (CSCI) and may only be used in its entirety. Extracts may not be used or reproduced without the express permission of CSCI The Coppice DS0000005606.V287821.R01.S.doc Version 5.1 Page 26 - Please note that this information is included on www.bestcarehome.co.uk under license from the regulator. Re-publishing this information is in breach of the terms of use of that website. Discrete codes and changes have been inserted throughout the textual data shown on the site that will provide incontrovertable proof of copying in the event this information is re-published on other websites. The policy of www.bestcarehome.co.uk is to use all legal avenues to pursue such offenders, including recovery of costs. You have been warned!