Inspection on 22/08/07 for The Grove

This inspection was carried out on 22nd August 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 found no outstanding requirements from the previous inspection report, but made 1 statutory requirements (actions the home must comply with) as a result of this inspection.

Other inspections for this house

The Grove 27/09/06

The Grove 30/12/05

The Grove 09/03/05

The Grove 19/07/04

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 09/07/2008.

CARE HOME ADULTS 18-65 The Grove 235 Stradbroke Road Lowestoft Suffolk NR33 7HS Lead Inspector John Goodship Key Unannounced Inspection 22nd August 2007 13:30p The Grove DS0000029259.V350627.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 The Grove DS0000029259.V350627.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. The Grove DS0000029259.V350627.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 3 SERVICE INFORMATION Name of service The Grove Address 235 Stradbroke Road Lowestoft Suffolk NR33 7HS 01502 569119 01502 537919 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) Amber Care (East Anglia) Ltd vacant post Care Home 5 Category(ies) of Learning disability (5) registration, with number of places The Grove DS0000029259.V350627.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 4 SERVICE INFORMATION Conditions of registration: Date of last inspection 27th September 2006 Brief Description of the Service: Situated on the outskirts of Lowestoft, The Grove offers registered care to five younger adults aged under 65 who have learning difficulties, autism and behaviours that may be challenging. The home is a large bungalow dwelling, which has been extended to provide five- bed roomed accommodation, two lounges, a large kitchen, an enclosed rear garden and is set back from a busy road. There are local shops and services within a close proximity. Residents of The Grove attend a day service also run by Amber Care during the week. At the time of inspection, the fees ranged from £463.50 to £2204.70 per week. The Grove DS0000029259.V350627.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. The inspection took place on a weekday and covered the period when most of the residents were returning from the day centre. The manager was present throughout, together with staff on the morning shift and, later, those on the late shift. The inspector toured the home, was able to watch residents in the home and returning from day care, and spoke to 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 relatives. Three relatives responded. Their answers to the questions and any additional comments have been included in the appropriate sections of this report. The manager was also required to complete an Annual Quality Assurance Assessment by the Commission. The information in this document has also been used in the preparation of this report. What the service does well: The staff have a good understanding of the needs of residents, and are well trained to handle their different behaviours, which are sometimes challenging. They are able through training and good communication to maintain a consistent approach to the behaviour of residents, contributing to its improvement. Residents are able to make real choices about their lives. Each resident is monitored to see how they develop skills and behaviour against pre-set goals. This is well recorded. Daily activity is also fully recorded, aiding care reviews, and when necessary providing evidence of the home’s care to other agencies. Care plans are comprehensive and well-constructed to identify needs and to assess risks of activities which residents could choose to undertake for their personal development. A relative wrote: “The home is completely personcentred.” Another said: “They offer good care with affection. Meeting people’s different needs is what they excel at.” The Grove DS0000029259.V350627.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 6 What has improved since the last inspection? 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. The Grove DS0000029259.V350627.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 The Grove DS0000029259.V350627.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. Residents and relatives can expect that the home will identify the individual needs and preferences of residents, and will offer the opportunity to visit the home before any admission is agreed. This judgement has been made using available evidence including a visit to this service. EVIDENCE: A Statement of Purpose that had been written for the home contained all the items of information required, such as admission criteria, the organisation and staffing of the home, and the facilities of the home. A Residents’ Handbook had been compiled and included a Statement of Terms and Conditions of Residence. This was used as a service users’ guide and had been compiled using photographs of the home, staff and each resident. Symbols had been used to promote understanding. The Statement of Purpose had been updated to show the name of the new manager, although it was made clear that she was not yet registered with the Commission for Social Care Inspection. The Grove DS0000029259.V350627.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 9 All the relatives who replied to the survey said that they had received enough information about the home to help them make decisions. The care records of the resident who had been admitted last year had been examined at the previous inspection and showed a thorough pre-admission process, including visits to the home. There were four residents living in the home at the time of the inspection. One person had moved to more appropriate accommodation in September 2006, following careful professional assessment by the health authority staff. The Grove DS0000029259.V350627.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. Quality in this outcome area is excellent. Residents can be assured that their care needs will be reviewed regularly to make sure that their current needs are being met and they will be provided with as much support as necessary to make decisions about their daily lives. Residents can be assured that they will be encouraged and supported by the home in taking risks as part of developing an individual life style. This judgement has been made using available evidence including a visit to this service. EVIDENCE: Very detailed care plans were in place at the home. They contained information about the person’s background and their admission details including a preadmission assessment, photos, information about the individual, their relatives and families and great detail regarding their care needs, risk assessments and gave very clear instructions to staff regarding the likes and dislikes, needs and behaviours of each individual. Care plans were reviewed every six months. One plan had been updated in July 2007. Staff signed to say that they had read the care plans. Plans took the format of identifying the need/problem, specifying The Grove DS0000029259.V350627.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 11 the goal to be achieved, and stating the action required to support the resident in this area. Risk assessments had been developed, identifying the risk, and how staff should support residents to minimise the risk while retaining a certain amount of choice and independence. Examples of the assessment areas included: using a wheelchair outside the home, using the kitchen, choking on food, slipping in the shower, and using the minibus. Assessments were reviewed every six months or sooner if required. One care plan showed that the last review was in February 2007. One resident had recently had to use an oxygen concentrator at night. Staff had been trained by the supplier in the safe handling and use of this. Another resident required an emergency protection plan because of their medical condition, with two hourly checks at night. A referral to the specialist had been made nine months ago but no appointment had yet been notified. A report covering each twenty four hour period was written by each shift, on a proforma covering activities, daily routine, appointments, incidents, medication given, personal care, food and drink, and the staff working with the resident on each shift. These records were read each morning by the manager to check on each resident. Care records included information on the resident’s wishes, or their relatives’ wishes, on end of life arrangements. Staff and relatives gave examples of the choices which residents were enabled to make, from choosing which clothes to wear, which breakfast cereal to eat, to whether to go to the day centre that day. A relative wrote that the home “expands the individuals’ lives by taking them in the outside world and giving them the choice to participate, and encouraging family members in their home environment”. One resident had been consulted about the possible move into supported living accommodation but had declined the offer. The Grove DS0000029259.V350627.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): 11,12,13,14,15,16,17. Quality in this outcome area is good. Residents and relatives can be assured that the home will encourage residents to join in appropriate social and leisure activities both in the home and in the community. Residents and relatives can be assured that the home will respect residents’ rights to lead full and meaningful lives. Residents can expect that they will be provided with a healthy diet with proper surveillance of their nutritional needs. This judgement has been made using available evidence including a visit to this service. EVIDENCE: A daily Independent Living report was completed for each resident, matching planned skill areas identified in their annual plan with actual activities and The Grove DS0000029259.V350627.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 13 progress. Examples of skills being encouraged were: making the bed, putting their own laundry away in drawers, loading the dishwasher, sweeping the floor, polishing their shoes, cleaning their room, making cakes. The reports listed the level of support given by staff on each activity. These reports were good practice and showed that a pro-active programme of support was given by staff. The routines, activities and plans were resident focused, regularly reviewed, and could be quickly changed to meet individuals’ changing needs, choices and wishes. The redundant concrete garage in the back garden had been turned into an activities room, with painting and other craft materials. Several residents helped to cook as far as they were able, and with staff support. Cakes were apparently popular. There were generic and individual risk assessments around eating support. There were fresh vegetables in the kitchen, and a varied menu which residents helped to select. The temperature of the fridge and freezer were taken and recorded. All items in the fridge at the time of the inspection were covered and dated. Previous inspections had noted that any nutritional problems were identified and referred to specialists. All four of the current residents attended the Crown House day centre run by the providers. They were taken there by the home’s minibus. Risk assessments were in place for some of them when travelling in the minibus for their own safety. Each person took a diary with them for the day service to record any key happenings. When residents returned from their day centre, they each followed their own routine. Some had a drink and a snack, with the support of staff who were knowledgeable about their preferences and abilities. On the day of the inspection, the home was hosting a barbecue for the residents and those from other homes in the group, and for relatives. One resident had decided not to go to the day centre, but to help with the shopping and some of the preparation. A relative wrote that “ we have just returned from the barbecue. It was pure pleasure to see a gathering of people with varying abilities participate and cope well at this social gathering. As usual the staff had put in 150 .” Two relatives commented that they did not feel that the day service was as good as the residential care. It did not offer sufficiently demanding or stimulating activities or skills training, to meet the wishes and the abilities of residents. Day services are not subject to inspection by the Commission, but the home has a duty to ensure that residents have opportunities for personal development. A recommendation is made that the day service should be evaluated for each resident. The fact that the particular service used is run by the company should not affect the choice available to meet residents’ needs. The Grove DS0000029259.V350627.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 14 Residents had been on holiday this year to a holiday camp at Clacton. Staff reported that the residents enjoyed themselves. One parent wrote that their relative benefited from being taken out, and getting involved in physical activities such as swimming and going to the gym. The Grove DS0000029259.V350627.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. Residents can be assured that staff are very aware of the physical and emotional needs of residents to enable them to live a healthy and social lifestyle. Residents are protected by the home’s medication policies and practice. This judgement has been made using available evidence including a visit to this service. EVIDENCE: The inspector noted that details of care plans specified the way and manner in which residents indicated they wished their care to be provided. Daily record sheets gave an account of staff actions and interventions with residents. Within the home, female personal care was carried out by female support workers or with a female support worker present. However, with only one male support worker, the personal care needs of male residents could not always be done by a male support worker if that was their wish. The Grove DS0000029259.V350627.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 16 Care plans of residents identified their social and medical needs. It identified their several medical conditions, including right-sided hemiplaegia and the wearing of a pacemaker. For this they were under the supervision of the local cardiology clinic. Other health checks had been arranged for residents as needed, including for cataracts. A list of allergies was included in the plans. There was evidence in the care plans that GPs did regular medication reviews. The AQAA reported that: “We monitor the service users’ health through documentation that is recorded and identify problems, arranging the appropriate measures needed. We encourage family members to be involved in the service users’ health issues and making decisions for their future health care.” Information in the support plans confirmed that this was taking place. Relatives said in the survey that the home always gave the support and care to their relative that they expected. One relative wrote that the home looked after the emotional and physical care of their relative well. A previous inspection had observed a resident being assessed for a specialist wheelchair by the technician. A check of the medication stock showed that all medications were being given as prescribed. The record sheets had no gaps in signatures, and all creams had been dated on opening. End of life wishes were recorded in each resident’s file. The Grove DS0000029259.V350627.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. Relatives and residents can be assured that their complaints will be dealt with appropriately, should they arise. Residents can be assured that action will be taken on any allegation of abuse. This judgement has been made using available evidence including a visit to this service. EVIDENCE: The survey questionnaires from relatives all indicated that they would know how to complain, although none had ever done so. The home had produced a booklet in picture and symbol format called “How to complain”. It was about to be issued to residents. The managers of the other homes in the group had taken it up and would also be using it. There had been two examples in the previous two years when the home had referred incidents to Social Care Services. Appropriate action was taken by the home to activate the Protection of Vulnerable Adults (POVA) reporting policy. The comprehensive records maintained by the home assisted the investigation of incidents. Staff training in adult protection was covered initially in the abuse section of the Skills For Care (now the Common Induction Standards) induction syllabus, then in the unit in NVQ Level 2, and also through the use of the video “No Secrets”. When questioned, a member of staff was able to demonstrate an The Grove DS0000029259.V350627.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 18 understanding of the definition of abuse, with examples. They were clear that the route for reporting was to the manager or the person in charge of the shift. Individual staff were also trained to respond appropriately to physical and verbal aggression and fully understood the use of physical intervention as a last resort. The Grove DS0000029259.V350627.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): 24,25,28,30. Quality in this outcome area is good. Residents can be assured that the home is comfortable, clean and safe, with opportunities to decorate and furnish their own rooms. This judgement has been made using available evidence including a visit to this service. EVIDENCE: The home had been extended and adapted to meet the needs of residents with learning difficulties. Rooms were decorated according to the wishes and interests of the occupants. The occupants were encouraged and supported to help keep their rooms clean and tidy. The independent living report referred to under ‘Lifestyle’ recorded these activities. All bedrooms had en-suite facilities. The large garden was secure and well maintained, with leisure equipment, and outside seating. A barbecue was due to be held there on the evening of the inspection visit. The Grove DS0000029259.V350627.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 20 The communal space including the conservatory remained in excess of the minimum required by the Standards. The manager said that some of the furniture in the main lounge was to be replaced. The home was properly protected with fire precautions, and hot water temperatures were controlled to a safe level. The Grove DS0000029259.V350627.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 are cared for by competent and safe staff in appropriate numbers to support their daily needs. Residents are fully protected by the home’s recruitment procedures. This judgement has been made using available evidence including a visit to this service. EVIDENCE: The normal staffing ratio was one carer to one service user. All service users either went out to an external day service or spent the day with home staff. One service user was funded for an additional carer for community activities on some days or at certain times. At night, there were two waking night staff with a senior on call. On the day of inspection, there were two staff on sickness absence. They were covered by staff from the provider’s bank pool. Five out of the fourteen permanent staff had gained NVQ Level 2 or above, and four staff were studying for NVQ, three of them at Level 3. All staff were The Grove DS0000029259.V350627.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 22 trained to use the MDS medication system but only senior staff administered medication. training records were examined, which showed that all staff had done the Unisafe course on managing difficult behaviours, a one day course on autism, and a training session on low arousal, as well as other training not specific to the residents.. Two staff were specially trained to administer rectal diazepam. The personal files for two staff were examined. The recruitment process had been properly supported by identification documents and the Criminal Records Bureau check. The latter had been received before the start dates for both staff. The files recorded their induction into the home, and their completion of the Common Induction Standards. In-house induction included supervised periods working with each service user in turn, with particular recording of their knowledge of the service user’s mobility, diet, general activities, and personal care needs and preferences. Supervision records showed that the programme was up to date. Two staff were interviewed. Both confirmed the training they had been given, and the supervision they received. The behaviours of some of the residents was at times challenging to both staff and other residents. The inspector had witnessed on previous visits several instances of such behaviour when the residents returned from the day centre. These were handled appropriately by the staff, using diversion and deescalation. These incidents were always logged on incident or accident forms. Body maps were used to record any marks or injuries. A summary of all incidents was kept for regular review to identify if changes were needed to care plans, and for staff training discussions. Staff were trained on the Unisafe programme for handling challenging behaviour. A parent wrote: “The staff I meet are excellent at looking after my relative. The staff are able to keep their difficult behaviour under control, which then lets them develop and enjoy life.” The Grove DS0000029259.V350627.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): 37,39,42. Quality in this outcome area is good. Residents live in a well managed home with supportive staff, protected by safe procedures. This judgement has been made using available evidence including a visit to this service. EVIDENCE: The previous manager had retired in May 2007 after a prolonged absence. The deputy had been acting up since January 2007, and was then appointed as manager. She had completed the Registered Manager Award but had not yet received the certificate. She had not yet submitted the application to be registered. She was advised to do so without waiting for course certification. A relative wrote: “The new manager seems to be adapting to her new situation very well. She appears to be a caring and dedicated lady.” All the relatives who The Grove DS0000029259.V350627.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 24 responded to the questionnaire said that they were welcome in the home, were kept informed of important matters, and were consulted about care. The directors of the provider company had moved earlier in the year to a different part of the country. The registered address of the company had been changed and this had been properly notified to the Commission, and was shown on the Certificate of Registration. The directors had appointed an area manager to cover the company’s three care homes and the day centre in Lowestoft. The manager of The Grove reported to this area manager. This person was responsible for the monthly visit reports required by the regulations. These were up to date to July 2007. The home had issued a questionnaire to parents in January 2007 as part of the quality assurance process. Three had replied, and the inspector noted that all had praise for the care, and the staff, and the welcome they received when visiting. The accident log was examined. The accident book was properly completed, whilst retaining the requirements of data protection. The incident file kept a record of all incidents. A copy of each form was also filed in the appropriate resident’s care plan and a third copy went to the head office. The fire log was examined. This recorded weekly fire alarm tests, quarterly evacuation drills, and fire extinguisher and emergency lighting testing. The fire arrangements had been live tested at the beginning of August 2007 when there was a small fire in the laundry. All four residents were safely evacuated, the fire service attended, and the on-call manager came in. There was no damage to the building. A new washing machine had been installed. The Fire Risk Assessment was comprehensive. It was recommended that it should be reviewed at least annually. The Grove DS0000029259.V350627.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 X 27 X 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 4 3 3 4 X LIFESTYLES Standard No Score 11 3 12 3 13 3 14 3 15 3 16 3 17 3 PERSONAL AND HEALTHCARE SUPPORT Standard No 18 19 20 21 Score 3 3 3 3 3 X 3 X X 3 X The Grove DS0000029259.V350627.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. 1. Standard YA1 Regulation 5(1)(bb) Requirement The service users’ guide must contain information about the range of fees charged for the service and the arrangements for paying fees. Timescale for action 12/10/07 RECOMMENDATIONS These recommendations relate to National Minimum Standards and are seen as good practice for the Registered Provider/s to consider carrying out. No. 1. 2. Refer to Standard YA11 YA42 Good Practice Recommendations The opportunities available at the current day centre should be reviewed to ensure that they meet residents’ wishes and abilities. The fire risk assessment should be reviewed at least annually or when there is any change in the circumstances of the home. The Grove DS0000029259.V350627.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 27 Commission for Social Care Inspection Colchester Local Office Fairfax House Causton Road Colchester Essex CO1 1RJ 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 The Grove DS0000029259.V350627.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!