Inspection on 15/05/07 for The New Bungalow

This inspection was carried out on 15th May 2007.

CSCI has not published a star rating for this report, though using similar criteria we estimate that the report is Adequate. 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 New Bungalow 30/10/06

The New Bungalow 09/02/06

The New Bungalow 25/07/05

The New Bungalow 19/01/05

The New Bungalow 03/06/04

Similar services:

Insight - Eastchurch

Southfields

Thorndene

Sutton Lodge Nursing Home

Magenta

Seabourne House

33 St John`s Church Road

Dovedale Court

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

CARE HOME ADULTS 18-65 The New Bungalow The New Bungalow Forge Hill Aldington Ashford Kent TN25 7DT Lead Inspector Tina Thomas Key Unannounced Inspection 15 and 17th May 2007 10.00 th The New Bungalow DS0000023568.V329517.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 New Bungalow DS0000023568.V329517.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 New Bungalow DS0000023568.V329517.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 3 SERVICE INFORMATION Name of service The New Bungalow Address 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) The New Bungalow Forge Hill Aldington Ashford Kent TN25 7DT 01233 721222 Canterbury Oast Trust Post Vacant Care Home 6 Category(ies) of Learning disability (6), Physical disability (6) registration, with number of places The New Bungalow DS0000023568.V329517.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 4 SERVICE INFORMATION Conditions of registration: Date of last inspection 30th October 2006 Brief Description of the Service: The New Bungalow is registered to provide accommodation, personal care, and support to a maximum of six people with learning disabilities who may also have a physical disability. The premises is in a rural location and is a purpose built, single story bungalow which is approximately 15 minutes walk from the village shop and 10 minutes from the local pub. It is owned and operated by The Canterbury Oast Trust (C.O.T.), a charitable organisation and is managed by Mrs Margaret Hall. Staffing is provided based on the assessed dependency support requirements of each service user. Two ‘sleep in’ staff provide cover at night. Communal areas have been extended to include a conservatory. All bedrooms are registered for single occupancy. Staff have their own dedicated sleep-in facilities within the office areas. The home provides transport for all service users. There is a wheelchair accessible decked area to the rear of the premises and access to paved woodland walks nearby. Fees currently start from £1167.31 per week with additional costs being met by the service user for hairdressing, toiletries and chiropody. The New Bungalow DS0000023568.V329517.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 5 SUMMARY This is an overview of what the inspector found during the inspection. This inspection was unannounced. It was conducted over a two day period. The manager was not present for the first day of the inspection. The inspection process consisted of information collected before and during the visit to the home. Other information seen included assessment and care plans, medication records, duty rota and employment paperwork. What the service does well: What has improved since the last inspection? What they could do better: Information about what new people to the home want and need could be better collected. Care plans should be more organised so that key pieces of information can easily be located. They need to easily instruct staff as to how people like to be looked after and what peoples goals are and how to effectively meet their goals. The New Bungalow DS0000023568.V329517.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 6 When a risk is identified a risk assessment needs to be put in place. Care needs to be taken that information in risk assessments is correct. The medication policy and procedures need to cover all areas of practice to ensure that staff know the correct procedures. Staff induction needs to include training relating specifically to the people who live in the home i.e. LDAF. The home needs to improve its internal quality assurance processes. This will ensure that errors in documentation are improved, and also that people living at the home will have more opportunity to let their views be known. 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 New Bungalow DS0000023568.V329517.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 New Bungalow DS0000023568.V329517.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 8 Choice of Home The intended outcomes for Standards 1 – 5 are: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Prospective service users have the information they need to make an informed choice about where to live. Prospective users’ individual aspirations and needs are assessed. Prospective service users know that the home that they will choose will meet their needs and aspirations. Prospective service users have an opportunity to visit and to “test drive” the home. Each service user has an individual written contract or statement of terms and conditions with the home. The Commission consider Standard 2 the key standard to be inspected. JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for the following standard(s): 2 Quality in this outcome area is adequate This judgement has been made using available evidence including a visit to this service. Service users needs are not fully assessed prior to moving into the home. EVIDENCE: One pre-admission assessment was viewed. The manager had conducted the assessment. Some of the assessment is tick box format. Where information supplemented the tick boxes, it had not been included. One risk identified in the assessment was not risk assessed. There was no baseline measurement of the person’s primary need and little reference to it. There was nothing regarding this persons aspirations in their initial assessment. In discussion with the manager regarding aspirations she agreed that there is ‘not much on paper.’ Care plans did not contain care managers assessments of need. It was therefore impossible to conclude whether the care plan was based on the care manager’s assessment. A trial visit had taken place. The New Bungalow DS0000023568.V329517.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 9 Individual Needs and Choices The intended outcomes for Standards 6 – 10 are: 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. Service users know their assessed and changing needs and personal goals are reflected in their individual Plan. Service users make decisions about their lives with assistance as needed. Service users are consulted on, and participate in, all aspects of life in the home. Service users are supported to take risks as part of an independent lifestyle. Service users know that information about them is handled appropriately, and that their confidences are kept. The Commission considers Standards 6, 7 and 9 the key standards to be inspected. JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for the following standard(s): 6,7,and 9 Quality in this outcome area is adequate This judgement has been made using available evidence including a visit to this service. Care plans are not clear and concise. They do not guide staff how to best meet peoples needs. They do not fully identify people’s aspirations and goals for the future. Communication methods used for non-verbal communicators have not improved sufficiently, or in a timely manner. Decision-making processes are not well documented. Risks when identified are not always assessed and sometimes information in risk assessments is incorrect or could pose health and safety problems. This potentially puts people in the home at risk The New Bungalow DS0000023568.V329517.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 10 EVIDENCE: Information in care plans is disorganised. Information regarding people living at the home is held in a selection of files, held in a number of locations. Information is also in books and on charts. Whilst some of the information is valuable it does not set out clearly for staff how it is intended the service will meet current and changing needs and aspirations and achieve goals. Staff and the manager were unable to easily locate key documents. Discussion with the manager showed that ‘not all care plans are finished’. Care plans are not in a format that is meaningful to the people they are written about. Conversely, discussion with staff indicated that they clearly understood people’s needs. They could discuss how they offered choice and what different reactions meant for different people who could not communicate verbally. Unfortunately much of this information was not transferred to care plans. There was little evidence that service users were offered the communication support they need generally, but also to make decisions about their own lives. The home has a residents meeting weekly. When asked, the manager could not find one entry in the minutes from people without verbal communication that was meaningful. During the meeting all communication by staff is verbal. Staff do not routinely use makaton with people living in the home, although there was documentation that showed this should be regularly encouraged. Some key workers have collated communication books with photos to encourage choice for non-verbal communicators. However, there have been two previous requirements regarding this matter and action has not been timely or sufficient. The requirement remains with an extended timescale. When choices are made on behalf of the people that live in the home, they are not clearly documented. Some care plans are written in the first person, there are occasions when care plans stated ‘ I like…….. with no evidence that the person actually did like what the author was suggesting. Another stated ‘ if you decide that X is ready to get up’, There was no information suggesting how you would decide this on the person’s behalf and decisions regarding this were not recorded. A new policy has been put in place to remedy problems with the ‘chip & pin’ facility and enable people at the home to access their own money safely. Conversation with staff confirmed that they were unaware of the new policy. There was nothing regarding the new policy in the policy manual. The manager produced the new policy where it was stored in a locked cabinet. When asked as to why this document was not freely available to staff the manager The New Bungalow DS0000023568.V329517.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 11 expressed that she had put it there so that she knew where it was when the inspector came. Risk assessments are not always in place when there are recognised risks as previously mentioned in Standard 2. Others held incorrect information i.e. One bathing risk assessment offered staff a manual handling option that could be a health and safety issue. Another bathing risk assessment incorrectly referred to a type of hoist, which wasn’t in fact used by the person the assessment was written for. The New Bungalow DS0000023568.V329517.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): 12,13,15,16,and 17 Quality in this outcome area is adequate This judgement has been made using available evidence including a visit to this service. Activities are available, but it is not clear how service users have participated in the decision-making. Some service users have regular contact with family and friends. Service users are offered a healthy diet. EVIDENCE: People living at the home have some organised occupation most days. It was observed that activities that were on the planner were not always those that people were engaged in. On the day of inspection people at the home were unable to go out on the transport as planned as there were mainly agency staff on duty and they do not drive the homes vehicle. There was no plan in place to accommodate this and staff introduced activities ad- hoc. The New Bungalow DS0000023568.V329517.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 13 People are encouraged to maintain friendships and activities they were involved in prior to coming to live at the home. People living at the home are supported to get out into the wider community. The level of consultation and supported decision-making given to service users who have communication needs is poor. People are assumed to like or dislike activities based on staff individual interpretation, but none of this is documented to help new staff provide options. Relationships with family members and friends is well supported for some people. Previous feedback from families had said that the home was welcoming. Friendships within the organisation are supported through various social activities. Despite it being highlighted at the last inspection particular friendships within the home continue not to be fully noted or promoted, especially for people with communication needs. Some service users enjoy lots of participation in the home’s daily routine – such as washing up, housework, shopping. Others have little or no participation. Care plans do not offer an explanation of these differences. Mealtime support aided people’s ability to self-feed. A wide range of good quality food is provided. Some people choose what goes on the menu. People who need support to eat and drink are reasonably supported, but staff must be aware not to loose concentration on the service user during these times. Some staff have produced photos to enable choices of food and drink for people without verbal communication The New Bungalow DS0000023568.V329517.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 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. 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. Personal support needs are sometimes detailed, but do not routinely encourage people to increase independence. Physical health needs are generally well met. Medication management has improved but polices and procedures do not cover all aspects of practice. EVIDENCE: Service users preference in support has been partly assessed through observations. Support to promote independence in dressing and other personal care duties was sometimes evident in care plans. However, times for getting up/going to bed, baths, meals and other activities are often decided by staff without supporting documentation of the decision making process. Some documentation i.e. manual handling risk assessments are conflicting and The New Bungalow DS0000023568.V329517.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 15 should be reviewed. A service user said staff are nice and that they have a key worker they like. The home takes action to support service users healthcare requirements. Generally, records to support healthcare are up to date. Limited communication plans conflict with the assessed needs stated within care plans i.e. the use of makaton, which in care plans is identified as to be encouraged, is seldom used. Medication procedures have been updated and are generally safer. Despite being highlighted at the last inspection few assessments for personal control are in place, those that are say a person cannot take any control. Generally, medication administration records are in order. The medication policy now reflects practice, although there are still some areas of practice that do not have clear guidance for staff within the policies and procedures. Staff administering medication have suitable medication training. The New Bungalow DS0000023568.V329517.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 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. JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for the following standard(s): Quality in this outcome area is adequate This judgement has been made using available evidence including a visit to this service. Staff are aware of adult protection issues. Staff endeavour to protect the dignity of the people living at the home. EVIDENCE: There continues to be no external complaints. One complaint by a staff member had been investigated by the manager and the area manager but there was no evidence in the home of how this had been investigated or how a conclusion had been reached. One piece of documentation giving incorrect information that was directly linked to this complaint and had serious implications had not been recognised by either the manager or area manager. This could put people in the home at risk. Staff have adult protection training. A previous requirement to make safe the way service user money is withdrawn from their bank accounts has now been met. However, as previously mentioned the policy was not available to staff. The internal system of handling money on service users behalf is accountable. Mild aggression by some people is not dealt with in a consistent manner by staff. The New Bungalow DS0000023568.V329517.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 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. JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for the following standard(s): 24 and 30 Quality in this outcome area is adequate This judgement has been made using available evidence including a visit to this service. The home is clean and odourless. Consideration must be given to the comfort, privacy and health and safety of people during the on-going alterations and redecoration of the home. EVIDENCE: The home was generally clean and free from odour. The building of the conservatory has been completed and this creates extra communal space. The conservatory is currently being used as the lounge whilst the lounge is being redecorated. The conservatory has as yet to have blinds fitted. There was no plan to protect service users privacy. There were also no plans in place to protect people sitting in the conservatory from heat or cold which may permeate the glass in the conservatory. The New Bungalow DS0000023568.V329517.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 18 The lounge, which is being decorated, is also currently being used as an activities room. The furnishings that are currently in the lounge are a collection of oddments. One carer described the lounge as ‘looking like a day centre.’ The lounge carpet is extremely dirty and stained. The manager said that there are plans for a new carpet but there has been no action to clean this carpet in the interim. Peoples own rooms were homely. The shower room has now been retiled and does not have any odour. The New Bungalow DS0000023568.V329517.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 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. JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for the following standard(s): 32,34,and 35 Quality in this outcome area is adequate This judgement has been made using available evidence including a visit to this service. The staff rota does not ensure that there is the right balance of staff on duty at all times to meet the needs of people in the home, or the regulations or to ensure the safety of people in the home. Recruitment processes protect service users, but continue not to involve them in the process. Staff training provision has not been inclusive of the assessed and developmental needs of the service users. EVIDENCE: Discussion with staff indicated that staff numbers were currently sufficient to meet people’s needs. However, staff expressed that sometimes it was difficult trying to fulfil all the roles of carer, cook and cleaner. On the afternoon of the first day of inspection there were not any staff that were able to drive the homes vehicle so planned activities could not go ahead. The New Bungalow DS0000023568.V329517.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 20 There was also no staff on duty that had first aid training. Although staff on duty were experienced and had knowledge of people living at the home, there was no staff on duty in a senior capacity. This lack of consideration when planning the rota could leave people living at the home at risk. Observation of staff indicated that they were extremely kind and caring. As previously mentioned whilst staff have training in Makaton and it is recognised in care plans that it should be used, the home does not have a signing culture. Equality and diversity is not being promoted for those people with non-verbal communication. This was highlighted at the last inspection but no action has been taken to address the issue. Staff files showed that the appropriate pre-recruitment checks had been conducted. The home did not have some of the documentation regarding staff required by Schedule 2 of the Care Homes Regulations 2001. Recruitment taking place at the time of the visit did not involve service users in the process. This was highlighted at the last inspection but no action has been taken to address the issue. Induction is now linked to the common induction standards for care, but still does not cover working with people with a learning disability. This was highlighted at the last inspection but no action has been taken to address the issue. Service users cannot be assured that they will be supported to develop increased independence in a way that is right for their particular need. The New Bungalow DS0000023568.V329517.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 21 Conduct and Management of the Home The intended outcomes for Standards 37 – 43 are: 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. Service users benefit from a well run home. Service users benefit from the ethos, leadership and management approach of the home. Service users are confident their views underpin all self-monitoring, review and development by the home. Service users’ rights and best interests are safeguarded by the home’s policies and procedures. Service users’ rights and best interests are safeguarded by the home’s record keeping policies and procedures. The health, safety and welfare of service users are promoted and protected. Service users benefit from competent and accountable management of the service. The Commission considers Standards 37, 39, and 42 the key standards to be inspected. JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for the following standard(s): 37,38,39Quality in this outcome area is adequate This judgement has been made using available evidence including a visit to this service. The manager does not always work in a timely manner to meet requirements. There is little evidence to support the involvement of service users in the development of this service. Further attention needs to be paid to health and safety provision. EVIDENCE: The manager has completed NVQ Level 4 in Care and is completing the registered managers award. The manager has been in post for over a year but has not yet applied to become registered with the Commission and therefore has not been through the ‘fit person’ interview process. The New Bungalow DS0000023568.V329517.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 22 The manager expressed that she believes that she has changed the culture of the home and gave examples of how people at the home now have more choice in their everyday lives. However, there has been little change or improvement since the last inspection. The manager has not ensured that policies are suitably implemented, reviewed or that staff are aware and have access to new policies. The manager has not ensured that the requirements of the last inspection have been suitably met and issues highlighted at the previous inspection have frequently not been actioned. The manager does not always communicate a clear sense of direction and leadership, which staff understand and are able to relate to the aims and purpose of the home. Examples would be the continuation of weekly meetings that were evidenced to have no purpose for people living at the home, the disorganised manner in which the manager deals with the administration of the home and the lack of attention to health and safety issues. The manager does not have suitable strategies for enabling people living at the home to voice concerns and to affect the way in which the service is delivered. Because communication and consultation with every service user is poorly facilitated, effective quality assurance monitoring measures cannot be achieved. When carrying out quality assurance, it is essential to collect service user opinion, using all available methods. The manager must improve the internal monitoring system to improve and develop the service. This was highlighted at the last inspection but not actioned. The manager has sought the views of parents through questionnaires. The health and safety of service users and staff is not always observed by the manager. As previously mentioned information in manual handling risk assessments were incorrect. One identified risk did not have a suitable assessment. The homes fire risk assessment has not been updated since 2004 and does not reflect that the home now has a conservatory. It also refers to 5 people living in the home when in fact there are now 6 people living at the home. This puts service users at risk. Fire safety was discussed with the manager at the previous inspection. The New Bungalow DS0000023568.V329517.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 23 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 2 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 2 23 2 ENVIRONMENT Standard No Score 24 2 25 x 26 3 27 x 28 x 29 x 30 3 STAFFING Standard No Score 31 x 32 2 33 x 34 2 35 2 36 x CONDUCT AND MANAGEMENT OF THE HOME Standard No 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 Score 2 2 x 2 x LIFESTYLES Standard No Score 11 x 12 2 13 2 14 x 15 2 16 2 17 3 PERSONAL AND HEALTHCARE SUPPORT Standard No 18 19 20 21 Score 2 2 2 x 2 2 2 x x 2 x The New Bungalow DS0000023568.V329517.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 24 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 YA6 Regulation Requirement Timescale for action 15/07/07 2 YA7 12, 14, Previous requirement, timescale 15, 17, 18 extended from 01/06/06 and 01/02/07 Using a person centred approach, development of comprehensive care and support plans that are specific to each individuals strength and needs, and identify their aspirations and goals for the future. 12, 15 Previous requirement, timescale extended from 01/02/07 Standards YA 7 & 8 Consult with service users about their life choices and improve methods of communication used. Risk is suitably assessed and risk management strategies are agreed, recorded in the individual plan, and reviewed. Previous requirement, timescale extended from 01/01/07 Review all medication practices and policy. Previous requirement, timescale extended from 01/11/05, 01/06/06, and 01/01/07. Induction training to cover the DS0000023568.V329517.R01.S.doc 15/07/07 3 YA9 13 01/07/07 4. YA20 13,18 01/07/07 5. YA35 14 18 01/07/07 The New Bungalow Version 5.2 Page 25 needs of the people being supported, i.e. LDAF. Audit the training provision against the assessed needs of the service users and provide training to meet the needs accordingly. 5. YA39 24 Previous requirement, timescale extended from 01/12/05 01/07/06 and 01/01/07; Develop an inclusive, robust, quality assurance monitoring system against the elements of this standard. 15/07/07 RECOMMENDATIONS These recommendations relate to National Minimum Standards and are seen as good practice for the Registered Provider/s to consider carrying out. No. Refer to Standard Good Practice Recommendations The New Bungalow DS0000023568.V329517.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 26 Commission for Social Care Inspection Maidstone Local Office The Oast Hermitage Court Hermitage Lane Maidstone ME16 9NT National Enquiry Line: Telephone: 0845 015 0120 or 0191 233 3323 Textphone: 0845 015 2255 or 0191 233 3588 Email: enquiries@csci.gsi.gov.uk Web: www.csci.org.uk © This report is copyright Commission for Social Care Inspection (CSCI) and may only be used in its entirety. Extracts may not be used or reproduced without the express permission of CSCI The New Bungalow DS0000023568.V329517.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 27 - 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!