Inspection on 11/12/06 for The Maples

This inspection was carried out on 11th December 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 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 Maples 06/12/07

The Maples 02/11/05

The Maples 28/06/05

Similar services:

Abbey The

Snydale Care Home

Hawkhills

Larchfield Manor

Beeches The - North Yorkshire County Council

The Grove Waltham

Carentan House

Ravensworth Lodge

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

CARE HOMES FOR OLDER PEOPLE The Maples 66 Bence Lane Darton Barnsley South Yorkshire S75 5PE Lead Inspector Christine Rolt Key Unannounced Inspection 11th December 2006 09:30 X10015.doc Version 1.40 Page 1 The Commission for Social Care Inspection aims to: • • • • Put the people who use social care first Improve services and stamp out bad practice Be an expert voice on social care Practise what we preach in our own organisation Reader Information Document Purpose Author Audience Further copies from Copyright Inspection Report CSCI General Public 0870 240 7535 (telephone order line) This report is copyright Commission for Social Care Inspection (CSCI) and may only be used in its entirety. Extracts may not be used or reproduced without the express permission of CSCI www.csci.org.uk Internet address The Maples DS0000063554.V308603.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 2 This is a report of an inspection to assess whether services are meeting the needs of people who use them. The legal basis for conducting inspections is the Care Standards Act 2000 and the relevant National Minimum Standards for this establishment are those for Care Homes for Older People. They can be found at www.dh.gov.uk or obtained from The Stationery Office (TSO) PO Box 29, St Crispins, Duke Street, Norwich, NR3 1GN. Tel: 0870 600 5522. Online ordering: www.tso.co.uk/bookshop This report is a public document. Extracts may not be used or reproduced without the prior permission of the Commission for Social Care Inspection. The Maples DS0000063554.V308603.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 3 SERVICE INFORMATION Name of service The Maples Address 66 Bence Lane Darton Barnsley South Yorkshire S75 5PE 01226 382 688 none none Telephone number Fax number Email address Provider Web address Name of registered provider(s)/company (if applicable) Name of registered manager (if applicable) Type of registration No. of places registered (if applicable) Mrs Parvin Riaz Khan Mr Rizwan Iqbal, Mr Asif Riaz Khan Mrs Vicky Brook Care Home 15 Category(ies) of Old age, not falling within any other category registration, with number (15) of places The Maples DS0000063554.V308603.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 4 SERVICE INFORMATION Conditions of registration: Date of last inspection 2nd November 2005 Brief Description of the Service: The Maples is an extended detached bungalow and is registered to provide personal care for 15 persons over the age of 65. The home is set back from the road amid mature gardens. The Maples is situated in the village of Darton and is approximately three miles from Barnsley town centre and a few minutes drive from the M1 Motorway junction 38. There is adequate car parking at the front of the home. Information supplied in the Pre-Inspection Questionnaire dated 17th August 2006 stated that the weekly fee was £337.50. Hairdressing and chiropody were not included in the weekly fee and were charged separately. Prospective residents and their relatives were issued with copies of the home’s Service User Guide and Brochure and all residents had copies of the Service User Guide in their bedrooms. The Maples DS0000063554.V308603.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 5 SUMMARY This is an overview of what the inspector found during the inspection. This was a key inspection and comprised information already received from or about the home and a site visit. The site visit was from 9:30 am to 6.45 pm on 11th December 2006. The registered manager Mrs Vicky Clarke was present and provided assistance throughout the site visit. The majority of the residents were seen throughout the day and four residents, two relatives and a GP were asked for their opinions of the home. In addition to this two relatives were contacted by telephone and asked for their opinions. Two residents were tracked throughout the inspection and one resident was partially tracked. A sample of records was examined and a partial inspection of the building was carried out. The inspector wishes to thank the registered manager, staff, residents and relatives for their assistance and co-operation. What the service does well: What has improved since the last inspection? All previous requirements and recommendations had been met. Care plans were now reviewed at least once a month in consultation with the resident or their representative. End of life preferences were now included on residents’ files. Recruitment procedures had improved but advice was given on how these could be further improved. The Maples DS0000063554.V308603.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 6 Staff meetings were held regularly. 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 Maples DS0000063554.V308603.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 7 DETAILS OF INSPECTOR FINDINGS CONTENTS Choice of Home (Standards 1–6) Health and Personal Care (Standards 7-11) Daily Life and Social Activities (Standards 12-15) Complaints and Protection (Standards 16-18) Environment (Standards 19-26) Staffing (Standards 27-30) Management and Administration (Standards 31-38) Scoring of Outcomes Statutory Requirements Identified During the Inspection The Maples DS0000063554.V308603.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 8 Choice of Home The intended outcomes for Standards 1 – 6 are: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Prospective service users have the information they need to make an informed choice about where to live. Each service user has a written contract/ statement of terms and conditions with the home. No service user moves into the home without having had his/her needs assessed and been assured that these will be met. Service users and their representatives know that the home they enter will meet their needs. Prospective service users and their relatives and friends have an opportunity to visit and assess the quality, facilities and suitability of the home. Service users assessed and referred solely for intermediate care are helped to maximise their independence and return home. The Commission considers Standards 3 and 6 the key standards to be inspected at least once during a 12 month period. JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for the following standard(s): 1, 2, 3 and 6. Quality in this outcome area is good. This judgement has been made from evidence gathered before, during and after the visit to this service. Prospective residents and their families considered that they had the information needed to make an informed choice about where to live. Residents had written contracts/statements of terms and conditions with the home. Residents had their needs assessed and were assured that these could be met. This home does not provide intermediate care. EVIDENCE: Residents and their relatives said that they had received sufficient information about the home and were given written information. The manager said that prospective residents and their relatives were shown round the home and given copies of the home’s brochure and service user guide. Prospective residents were encouraged to visit the home for a day and have a meal to see whether the home suited them. Residents had copies of the service user guide in their bedrooms. The Maples DS0000063554.V308603.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 9 Residents’ files contained copies of their contracts/statements of terms and conditions. Their files also contained copies of their assessments to ensure that the home could meet their needs. Comments received were “Looked round four homes and this suited my mother – nice, steady and quiet”, “Small, homely atmosphere” and “Flat – no steps”. The Maples DS0000063554.V308603.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 10 Health and Personal Care The intended outcomes for Standards 7 – 11 are: 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. The service user’s health, personal and social care needs are set out in an individual plan of care. Service users’ health care needs are fully met. Service users, where appropriate, are responsible for their own medication, and are protected by the home’s policies and procedures for dealing with medicines. Service users feel they are treated with respect and their right to privacy is upheld. Service users are assured that at the time of their death, staff will treat them and their family with care, sensitivity and respect. The Commission considers Standards 7, 8, 9 and 10 the key standards to be inspected at least once during a 12 month period. JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for the following standard(s): 7, 8, 9 and 10. Quality in this outcome area is adequate. This judgement has been made from evidence gathered before, during and after the visit to this service. Residents’ health, personal and social care needs were set out in individual plans of care, but improvements could be made. Health needs were met. Medication procedures were followed correctly. Residents were treated with respect and their right to privacy upheld. Funeral wishes were recorded on care plans. EVIDENCE: Records were kept of care given and any issues that had arisen and how these had been dealt with. Care plans and risk assessments were in place but advice was given on expanding this information to ensure that the information could not be misinterpreted and that all aspects of residents’ individual needs including social and emotional needs were met. Resident information was spread over several files. The provision of one file per resident for ease of reference was discussed with the manager. Care plans were reviewed at least once per month but the manager could not confirm that these were done in The Maples DS0000063554.V308603.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 11 consultation with the resident or their representative. Health professionals visited the home throughout the day and residents and their relatives confirmed that residents’ health needs were met. Staff who dealt with medication had undertaken accredited medication training. Medication was checked and this tallied with the MAR sheets. The manager was advised to obtain a second signature where entries were handwritten onto the MAR sheets. Residents were called by their preferred names and treated with respect. Residents and relatives confirmed that this was the case. Comments were “Yes, and with affection” and “Definitely”. Residents were offered keys to their bedrooms and keys for lockable facilities in their bedrooms and these were seen during the site visit. End of life preferences were now included in residents’ files. The Maples DS0000063554.V308603.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 12 Daily Life and Social Activities The intended outcomes for Standards 12 - 15 are: 12. 13. 14. 15. Service users find the lifestyle experienced in the home matches their expectations and preferences, and satisfies their social, cultural, religious and recreational interests and needs. Service users maintain contact with family/ friends/ representatives and the local community as they wish. Service users are helped to exercise choice and control over their lives. Service users receive a wholesome appealing balanced diet in pleasing surroundings at times convenient to them. The Commission considers all of the above key standards to be inspected at least once during a 12 month period. JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for the following standard(s): 12, 13, 14 and 15. Quality in this outcome area is good. This judgement has been made from evidence gathered before, during and after the visit to this service. Residents found the lifestyle matched their expectations and preferences and satisfied their social, cultural religious and recreational interests and needs. Contact with family, friends and the local community was encouraged. Residents received a wholesome appealing balanced diet in pleasing surroundings. Residents were generally helped to exercise choice and control but minor improvements could be made. EVIDENCE: The Pre-inspection questionnaire provided information on activities both inside and outside the home e.g. local church and chapel, visits by mothers union, outside entertainment comes in, coffee morning at local chapel every Saturday, games, bingo and cards. The manager said that staff read to residents, helped them with crosswords and correspondence and talked to them. Relatives said that staff tried to keep residents stimulated. Comments were “Clothes party, singers come in, staff chat to her and discuss old times”, “Very happy. Highly delighted. Improvement (in resident) unreal”, “Staff try to motivate her” and “Staff chat to her – offered activities but won’t take part”. The Maples DS0000063554.V308603.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 13 However, this information was not always recorded in residents’ files and this was discussed with the manager. (See Standard 7 above re meeting social needs). The manager said that visitors were always welcome and the number of visitors seen during the site visit verified this. Residents said that the food was good. The manager said that breakfast and tea offered variety and hot and cold options. Lunch was the main meal of the day. The manager said that preferences were taken into consideration but if any resident did not want the meal on offer, they could choose something else. However, there was no menu available and no optional meal offered. The manager said that residents had menus in their bedrooms but admitted that sometimes the food served was not what was on the menu. The manager was advised to provide a daily menu to ensure that residents were aware of the options available, enabling them to make a positive choice. Comments received about the meals were “Putting weight on – so eating okay” and “Very good”. The manager said that drinks were always available and were offered to residents before breakfast and at frequent intervals throughout the day. Sliced fruit was also available and there was also a bowl of fresh fruit in the dining room. The manager said that some residents liked to take a piece of fruit to eat in their rooms during the afternoon. The Maples DS0000063554.V308603.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 14 Complaints and Protection The intended outcomes for Standards 16 - 18 are: 16. 17. 18. Service users and their relatives and friends are confident that their complaints will be listened to, taken seriously and acted upon. Service users’ legal rights are protected. Service users are protected from abuse. The Commission considers Standards 16 and 18 the key standards to be inspected at least once during a 12 month period. JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for the following standard(s): 16 and 18. Quality in this outcome area is good. This judgement has been made from evidence gathered before, during and after the visit to this service. Residents and their relatives were confident that their complaints would be listened to and acted upon. Residents were protected from abuse. EVIDENCE: Residents and their relatives said that they were satisfied with the home and had no complaints. They said that if they had cause for complaint they would tell the manager and were confident that she would sort it out. The home had a complaints procedure and each resident had been issued with a copy of the service user guide, which contained a copy of the complaints procedure. The manager said that all staff with the exception of new employees had undertaken adult protection training. There had been one allegation of abuse that the manager had dealt with by following the correct procedures, which resulted in an ex member of staff being referred to POVA. The Maples DS0000063554.V308603.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 15 Environment The intended outcomes for Standards 19 – 26 are: 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. Service users live in a safe, well-maintained environment. Service users have access to safe and comfortable indoor and outdoor communal facilities. Service users have sufficient and suitable lavatories and washing facilities. Service users have the specialist equipment they require to maximise their independence. Service users’ own rooms suit their needs. Service users live in safe, comfortable bedrooms with their own possessions around them. Service users live in safe, comfortable surroundings. The home is clean, pleasant and hygienic. The Commission considers Standards 19 and 26 the key standards to be inspected at least once during a 12 month period. JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for the following standard(s): 19 and 26. Quality in this outcome area is poor. This judgement has been made from evidence gathered before, during and after the visit to this service. Residents lived in a fairly safe environment but general maintenance could be improved. Some parts of the home were clean, comfortable and pleasant but improvements needed to be made in specific areas. EVIDENCE: The majority of residents and their relatives considered that the home was clean and hygienic although one comment was that the bedroom furniture was ‘tatty’. There were no offensive odours in the main areas of the home, however, in one bedroom, an attempt had been made to mask an offensive odour with an overpowering air freshener. The manager was advised that the room needed to be deep cleaned to discover and eliminate the source of the offensive odour. The Maples DS0000063554.V308603.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 16 In another bedroom, there was a soiled patch on the carpet, the radiator guard on the bedroom radiator had not been painted, the light bulb in the en suite was not working and there was no radiator guard on the radiator in this en suite to protect the resident. The décor in some bedrooms was drab and in one part of the corridor the wallpaper was torn and the plasterwork was damaged. The ventilation fans in lavatories and en suites were clogged with fluff and one fan was not working. The carpets in two bedrooms were damaged and handles were missing from furniture in some bedrooms. All of the above was brought to the attention of the manager and the need for a full audit to ensure that all parts of the home were brought up to standard was discussed. The Maples DS0000063554.V308603.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 17 Staffing The intended outcomes for Standards 27 – 30 are: 27. 28. 29. 30. Service users’ needs are met by the numbers and skill mix of staff. Service users are in safe hands at all times. Service users are supported and protected by the home’s recruitment policy and practices. Staff are trained and competent to do their jobs. The Commission consider all the above are key standards to be inspected at least once during a 12 month period. JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for the following standard(s): 27, 28, 29 and 30. Quality in this outcome area is adequate. This judgement has been made from evidence gathered before, during and after the visit to this service. Residents’ needs were met by the numbers and skill mix of staff and were in safe hands at all times. Staff recruitment procedures had improved but more detail was needed. Staff received induction training but verification was needed that this met the guidelines. EVIDENCE: At the time of this site visit, there were sufficient staff to meet residents’ needs. Information received in the Pre-inspection Questionnaire, received August 2006, stated that 70 of staff were trained to NVQ Level 2 or above. During the site visit, the manager said that some staff had left which had reduced the percentage of staff with this qualification. However, she said that it was her aim for all staff to achieve this qualification therefore staff were either undertaking NVQ Level 2 or were waiting to start it. Four staff files were checked to determine whether all the relevant recruitment documentation was included. Some application forms did not provide full employment histories. The manager said that these had been discussed but there was no written evidence to verify this. Previous requirements for photographs and proof of identity were now included in files. The Maples DS0000063554.V308603.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 18 Files contained the staff’s CRB disclosure numbers but not the actual CRB documents. The manager said that she never received these documents. She said that she was informed by telephone of the CRB disclosure numbers and recorded these on staff files. The process for keeping the CRB information was discussed with the manager. She was also given a copy of the CSCI ‘In Focus’ booklet “Safe and Sound?” to assist her in improving her recruitment procedures. The manager was able to provide some staff induction forms but could not verify that the induction programme met the National Training Organisation guidelines. Comments about the staff were “Very good”, “They’re good” and “Get on fine with them”. The Maples DS0000063554.V308603.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 19 Management and Administration The intended outcomes for Standards 31 – 38 are: 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. Service users live in a home which is run and managed by a person who is fit to be in charge, of good character and able to discharge his or her responsibilities fully. Service users benefit from the ethos, leadership and management approach of the home. The home is run in the best interests of service users. Service users are safeguarded by the accounting and financial procedures of the home. Service users’ financial interests are safeguarded. Staff are appropriately supervised. Service users’ rights and best interests are safeguarded by the home’s record keeping, policies and procedures. The health, safety and welfare of service users and staff are promoted and protected. The Commission considers Standards 31, 33, 35 and 38 the key standards to be inspected at least once during a 12 month period. JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for the following standard(s): 31, 33, 35 and 38. Quality in this outcome area is adequate. This judgement has been made from evidence gathered before, during and after the visit to this service. Residents lived in a home that was run and managed by a person who was fit to be in charge. The home was generally run in residents’ best interests but improvements could be made. Residents’ financial interests were safeguarded. The health safety and welfare of residents and staff were generally promoted and protected but improvements could be made with regard to the servicing of equipment and systems. EVIDENCE: Since the last inspection a new manager had been appointed and she had registered with the CSCI. She had undertaken the Registered Managers Award and was close to completing this at the time of this site visit. The Maples DS0000063554.V308603.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 20 The manager said that staff meetings were held monthly and staff were expected to attend at least six during the year. The manager spoke about the benefits of these meetings. She said that meetings were held in the dining room during a quiet part of the day. However, this area is directly inside the main entrance and therefore public. The manager was advised to use a less public area to ensure confidentiality. A quality insurance monitoring system had commenced which included seeking the views of residents and relatives via questionnaires. The manager was given advice on how the questionnaires could be expanded to elicit more detailed responses. Advice was also given on how other aspects of quality monitoring could be implemented to ensure the home was run in residents’ best interests e.g., regular audits and records of the environment, medication, accidents, care plans and staff files, and residents’ and relatives meetings. There were no written reports as evidence of unannounced monthly visits by the registered owners as required by the Care Home Regulations. Some residents chose to look after their own personal allowances whilst others had this money looked after by the home. Money held on behalf of residents was stored securely. Three residents’ monies were checked against the records and these tallied. Relatives were asked if they were issued with receipts when they handed over money. They said “no”, but did not consider this to be a problem and had no concerns. The manager was advised to issue receipts when cash was handed over on behalf of residents. The Pre-Inspection Questionnaire provided information of staff training that had been undertaken within the last 12 months. The manager verified that staff mandatory health and safety training was monitored and that they were on the waiting list to update moving and handling training and emergency first aid. The manager was advised to implement a training matrix for ease of reference. The Pre-inspection Questionnaire requested information about the maintenance and associated records of the home. There was no information of Portable Appliance Tests (PAT) having been carried out. There was no information of when the home’s electrical wiring circuit check had last been carried out. The hoist and other adaptations had not been checked since October 2005. The manager said that the home did not have a servicing agreement for the servicing and maintenance of the gas and central heating. The home’s facsimile machine was not working. The Maples DS0000063554.V308603.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 21 SCORING OF OUTCOMES This page summarises the assessment of the extent to which the National Minimum Standards for Care Homes for Older People have been met and uses the following scale. The scale ranges from: 4 Standard Exceeded 2 Standard Almost Met (Commendable) (Minor Shortfalls) 3 Standard Met 1 Standard Not Met (No Shortfalls) (Major Shortfalls) “X” in the standard met box denotes standard not assessed on this occasion “N/A” in the standard met box denotes standard not applicable CHOICE OF HOME Standard No Score 1 2 3 4 5 6 ENVIRONMENT Standard No Score 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 3 3 3 X X N/A HEALTH AND PERSONAL CARE Standard No Score 7 2 8 3 9 3 10 3 11 3 DAILY LIFE AND SOCIAL ACTIVITIES Standard No Score 12 3 13 3 14 2 15 3 COMPLAINTS AND PROTECTION Standard No Score 16 3 17 X 18 3 1 X X X X X X 2 STAFFING Standard No Score 27 3 28 2 29 2 30 2 MANAGEMENT AND ADMINISTRATION Standard No 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 Score 3 X 2 X 3 X X 2 The Maples DS0000063554.V308603.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 22 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. Standard Regulation 12, 13 Timescale for action Care plans, risk assessments and 04/02/07 recording of how care needs are met need to be more detailed to ensure that all aspects of residents individual needs including social and emotional needs are met. Residents or their 04/02/07 representatives must be consulted about residents’ reviews. Residents must have current 04/02/07 information of meals and options available to enable them to make a positive choice. The manager must audit all 04/02/07 bedrooms and other parts of the home to determine the priority order for redecoration to ensure that the home is reasonably decorated. Repairs must be carried out e.g. 04/02/07 the damaged plaster work The identified bedroom must be 18/12/06 deep cleaned to eliminate the offensive odour. Carpets must be kept clean, 18/12/06 specifically the soiled carpet in the identified bedroom. DS0000063554.V308603.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 23 Requirement 1. OP7 2. OP7 15 3. OP15 12 4. OP19 23 5. OP19 6. OP26 7. OP26 23 16 16 The Maples 8. OP19 9. OP19 10. OP19 16 16, 23 13, 23 11. OP19 12. OP19 13. OP26 14. OP29 23 13 13, 23 13, 19 The damaged carpets in the two identified bedrooms must be replaced. Damaged bedroom furniture must be repaired or replaced. Lighting must be provided in all parts of the home used by residents, specifically the en suite in the identified bedroom. The non-functioning ventilation fan in the identified en suite must be repaired or replaced. Provide radiator guards where missed, e.g. en suites Ventilation fans in lavatories and en suites must be cleaned regularly Staff must be deemed fit to work at the home, by the provision of enhanced CRB disclosures prior to employment, a record of the employee’s full employment history, and written evidence that discrepancies have been discussed and risk assessed. 04/02/07 04/02/07 18/12/06 04/02/07 04/02/07 04/02/07 04/02/07 15. OP30 16. OP33 17. OP33 12, 13, 18 The registered manager must verify that the current staff induction programme meets the National Training Organisation guidelines. 26 The registered provider must produce monthly reports on the conduct of the care home as required by regulation 26 of the Care Homes Regulations. A copy of the reports must be sent to the CSCI 24 The review of quality of care must ensure that the home is run in the best interests of residents (e.g. increased frequency of environmental checks, audits of records, systems and work practices) and written records kept as verification. DS0000063554.V308603.R01.S.doc 04/02/07 04/02/07 04/02/07 The Maples Version 5.2 Page 24 18. OP38 13, 16 19. OP38 16 All systems and equipment within the home must be serviced and maintained regularly in compliance with the relevant Health and Safety Acts and Regulations to ensure the health and safety of residents. The facsimile machine must be repaired or replaced. 04/02/07 04/02/07 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 3 4 OP7 OP9 OP35 OP38 Refer to Standard Good Practice Recommendations Recommend one file per resident for ease of reference Strongly recommended that handwritten entries on MAR sheets be countersigned. Receipts should be issued for money handed over on behalf of residents. The implementation of a staff training matrix would provide an easy reference guide to staff training needs. The Maples DS0000063554.V308603.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 25 Commission for Social Care Inspection Sheffield Area Office Ground Floor, Unit 3 Waterside Court Bold Street Sheffield S9 2LR 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 Maples DS0000063554.V308603.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 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!