Inspection on 30/05/07 for The Park Nursing Home

This inspection was carried out on 30th May 2007.

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

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

Other inspections for this house

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

CARE HOMES FOR OLDER PEOPLE The Park Nursing Home 40 St Marks Road Derby DE21 6AH Lead Inspector Tony Barker Key Unannounced Inspection 30th May 2007 09:20 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 Park Nursing Home DS0000069389.V338752.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 Park Nursing Home DS0000069389.V338752.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 3 SERVICE INFORMATION Name of service The Park Nursing Home Address 40 St Marks Road Derby DE21 6AH 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) 01332 200422 01332 200644 European Care (Derby) Limited Sheila Anne Barwick Care Home 41 Category(ies) of Old age, not falling within any other category registration, with number (41), Physical disability (10) of places The Park Nursing Home DS0000069389.V338752.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 4 SERVICE INFORMATION Conditions of registration: 1. European Care (Derby) Limited is registered to provide nursing and personal care to service users whose primary needs fall within the categories of: Old Age, not falling within any category, (OP) - 41 Physical Disability (PD) - 10 The Maximum number of service users to be accommodated at The Park Nursing Home is 41 This is the first inspection since a change of registered provider 2. Date of last inspection Brief Description of the Service: The Park care home provides personal and nursing care for up to 41 persons in single en-suite bedrooms. It is a two-storey purpose built Home, which opened in 1998, and is situated on the outskirts of Derby close to local shops and bus route. There is a spacious shaft lift between floors. Secure gardens surround the premises. The fees for the Home are £475 to £545 per week. The Park Nursing Home DS0000069389.V338752.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 5 SUMMARY This is an overview of what the inspector found during the inspection. The time spent on this inspection was 8.25 hours and was a key unannounced inspection, focussing on all the key standards. Eight residents, the Registered Manager, the Operational Manager, the Motivator and one care assistant were spoken to, records were inspected and there was a tour of the premises. Three residents were case tracked so as to determine the quality of service from their perspective. Survey forms were posted to residents and 17 were returned – a number having been completed by relatives on behalf of residents. The information supplied in this way was analysed before the inspection and the outcomes included in the inspection process and reflected in this report. Additionally, telephone conversations were held with two relatives who had expressed a wish to speak to the Inspector. The pre-inspection questionnaire was reviewed prior to this inspection. What the service does well: What has improved since the last inspection? What they could do better: There must be an accurate record of all medication received and administered by the Home and all staff administering medication must be trained. Improvements should be made to certain records, the quality assurance system, staff training and activities for residents. The Park Nursing Home DS0000069389.V338752.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 6 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 Park Nursing Home DS0000069389.V338752.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 Park Nursing Home DS0000069389.V338752.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. JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for the following standard(s): 3&6 Quality in this outcome area is good. This judgement has been made using available evidence including a visit to this service. Individual written needs assessments were in place before people were admitted to the Home so that their diverse needs were identified and planned for. EVIDENCE: Two of the three case tracked residents’ had been admitted since the previous inspection and their files were examined for evidence that a full assessment of needs had been made before admission. Both files showed evidence of this. They contained full needs assessments and care plans from the referring public agencies as well as the Home’s own recorded pre-admission assessment, although the latter was not dated in one file. The multi-disciplinary assessment for one of the residents was very comprehensive. The Home was not providing intermediate care. The Park Nursing Home DS0000069389.V338752.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 9 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. JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for the following standard(s): 7,8,9 & 10 Quality in this outcome area is good. This judgement has been made using available evidence including a visit to this service. Residents had an individual plan of care which demonstrated that their health, personal and social care need were being fully met. They were being treated with respect and their right to privacy was upheld. EVIDENCE: The three case tracked residents’ files contained comprehensive and holistic care planning documents. The person’s social history and personal questionnaire covered areas such as preferred activities, favourite food and music and any real dislikes. This clearly showed that the Home was following a ‘person-centred approach’. Care plans were being reviewed monthly and, again, showed a thorough, rather than tokenistic, approach to this. However, a number of care planning documents were either unsigned or undated or both. All residents’ care was being reviewed, each six to twelve months, through multi-professional review meetings. The Manager stated she audits six care plans each week. Residents’ health needs were being regularly monitored and appropriately met. Falls, Moving & Handling, Nutrition, Continence and Tissue Viability were risk The Park Nursing Home DS0000069389.V338752.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 10 assessed and reviewed, although some records did not explicitly reflect these reviews and were not fully completed. There were also gaps in the monthly weight and blood pressure charts. ‘General Risk Assessments’ were in place. The Manager explained that European Care had developed new risk assessment documents, covering these areas, with associated review dates. Records of visiting GPs and other health professionals were in place. The Manager reported that these professionals included chiropodist, optician, physiotherapist, speech therapist, diabetic nurse and community psychiatric nurse. The relatives of three residents, who responded to the postal surveys, stated... • “I am very pleased with the quality of care my (relative) receives”, • “Staff are always willing to help”, and • “Because of their good relationships, the staff are able to cope with my (relative’s) disability”. Medication was being securely stored. Case tracked residents’ Medication Administration Record (MAR) sheets were examined. These were generally satisfactory and included double signatures for handwritten entries. However, there were a few gaps and two examples where there was no date for ‘Medication Received’. Also, there were inconsistencies regarding the recording of ‘as and when required’ (prn) paracetamol. Sometimes a gap would be left when not administered and sometimes an ‘O’ would be recorded. A written policy for the administration of prn medication was in place but no detailed individual resident protocols. One care plan examined indicated that prn Diazepam should be administered “when agitated” though no reference was made to the maximum dose in any 24 hour period. The majority of staff had had training in the safe use of medicines, the Manager stated. A Controlled Drugs Register was in place though no residents were taking controlled drugs at the time of this inspection. A medication refrigerator was in place. One resident introduced their spouse with whom they had lunch every day. This relative was due to stay overnight for three nights, on a camp bed within their bedroom, for their forthcoming wedding anniversary. The Manager said that these overnight stays occur at Christmas time too. Two case tracked residents spoken to confirmed they felt respected by staff and well cared for. One resident gave examples of how their privacy and dignity were respected by staff during times when personal care was being provided. The other said, “I do find people welcoming”. The Registered Manager and her line manager, the Operational Manager, both showed a commitment to make improvements to the way that residents’ health and personal care is met in the Home. The Park Nursing Home DS0000069389.V338752.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 11 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. JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for the following standard(s): 12,13,14 & 15 Quality in this outcome area is good. This judgement has been made using available evidence including a visit to this service. Activities at the Home were diverse and generally benefited residents. The Home encouraged family contact and provided residents with meals which were varied and which they enjoyed. EVIDENCE: A range of activities were available to residents and several copies of a Weekly Activities Rota were displayed around the Home. There was a recently appointed Motivator (activities co-ordinator) working 14 hours a week over four days. The Manager said of the Motivator, “She treats residents as people and provides age appropriate activities”. The Inspector spoke to the Motivator and found her to be energetic and with many ideas. She had brought in a small folding greenhouse to grow tomatoes with those residents who had recently formed a gardening group. She also produced records of individual residents’ interests. 50 of the 17 residents surveyed by post felt that only sometimes were there activities they could take part in. The Manager had also identified, in satisfaction questionnaires sent to residents and relatives, that there was need to improve activities and she felt that the new motivator would address this issue. One resident who responded to the postal survey said, “All my needs are met but would like to go out more”. There were individual residents and small groups of residents who went out locally into the The Park Nursing Home DS0000069389.V338752.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 12 community and this was planned to increase, the Manager said. One case tracked resident spoken to was satisfied with their quality of life. Another case tracked resident said that, due to sight and hearing impairments, the Home’s activities were not accessible to them. The care assistant spoken to said there was time for staff to sit and talk to residents. A very full Visitors Book confirmed the frequency of visitors to the Home and the Inspector noted a number on the day of this inspection. The two case tracked residents who were spoken to both confirmed they received regular visitors who could stay for as long as they liked. The Manager said that residents are actively encouraged to have their own items of furniture in their bedrooms and cited examples where residents were using their own bed or wardrobe. She added that, where possible, residents are offered a choice of wall colour in their bedroom, prior to admission. The Manager also stated that volunteer befrienders from ‘Help The Aged’ had visited residents in the past. She agreed to seek a volunteer to befriend one case tracked resident whose relative felt would benefit from periodic conversations. There are two dining areas in the Home. Lunch was observed in one of these: tables were well laid out, staff were seen helping residents to eat and there were two examples of special self-warming dishes being used by residents who took longer to eat their meal. The Manager produced photographs of some dished-out meals that she was proposing to show residents who have communication difficulties in order to help them choose their preferred meal. The Home’s menus were examined and each of every day’s three meals were of excellent quality. There was a displayed day’s menu in each of the dining areas. A visit was made to the kitchen and foodstocks were at a good level, with fresh fruit and vegetables. Residents and relatives who responded to the postal survey generally stated that they liked the meals at the Home. Comments included... • “If I want something different they usually do it for me, • “We have no problem with the quality of the food and my (relative) appears to enjoy most of it”, and • “My (relative) comes every day and has a meal with me”. The Manager spoke of another resident whose family have breakfast with the resident every day. One of the case tracked residents spoken to stated that the best thing about the Home was the food. Other residents spoken to were also positive about the food. One resident, with two others in one of the small lounges, said, “We choose to eat here rather than in the dining room”. The Home is commended on its catering service. The Park Nursing Home DS0000069389.V338752.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 13 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. JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for the following standard(s): 16 & 18 Quality in this outcome area is good. This judgement has been made using available evidence including a visit to this service. Robust procedures for handling complaints and abuse were in place ensuring residents were fully protected. EVIDENCE: The Home had a satisfactory complaints procedure that was displayed in the entrance hall. One formal complaint had been received within the previous 12 months. This had been well addressed and recorded. Verbal concerns raised by the relative of one resident had been typed, including the action taken, and placed on file. Most residents and relatives who responded to the postal survey knew who to speak to if they were not happy. One case tracked resident told the Inspector that “the Manager is approachable”. The Manager said that all staff had received a copy of the Home’s original ‘Adult Protection’ policy and had had access to European Care’s ‘Safeguarding Adults’ policy too, including its ‘Whistle Blowing’ policy. She added that the staff group were good at reporting their concerns about staff behaviour. One member of staff spoken to appeared not to be clear about the ‘Whistle Blowing’ policy – this was discussed later with the Manager. All nurse-trained staff, and some care staff, had been provided with external ‘safeguarding adults’ training by Derby City Council, the Manager said. The Operational Manager said she was proposing to run an in-house training session, on this topic, with staff. One resident who responded to the postal survey said, “The staff are all very friendly and helpful which makes me feel very safe and well looked after”. The Park Nursing Home DS0000069389.V338752.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 14 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. JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for the following standard(s): 19 & 26 Quality in this outcome area is good. This judgement has been made using available evidence including a visit to this service. Residents were living in a safe and comfortable environment, that was clean and hygienic. EVIDENCE: The Home was comfortably furnished and well decorated and maintained. It was surrounded by an attractive and well maintained garden. This was fully enclosed and provided a safe environment for those residents who may wander. One relative responding to the postal survey said, “The garden area always looks inviting”. The communal areas of the Home were inspected. Bathrooms were nicely decorated and made homely through the use of mirrors, pictures and curtains. There were several small lounge areas that, again, made the building more homely and gave residents more flexible use of communal space. Residents using all these communal areas had access to the Home’s emergency call bell system. The premises were clean and hygienic. A slight unpleasant odour in the entrance hall area, at the start of the inspection, was quickly rectified by the The Park Nursing Home DS0000069389.V338752.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 15 Manager. The laundry areas were well organised, with systems in place for laundering and return of personal clothing. Residents and relatives who responded to the postal survey confirmed that the Home was always fresh and clean. One said, “I am pleased by the cleanliness of the Home”. The care assistant spoken to described good infection control practices and said she had received infection control training within the previous 12 months. The Manager said that the majority of staff had been provided with Infection Control training. The Park Nursing Home DS0000069389.V338752.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 16 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. JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for the following standard(s): 27,28,29 & 30 Quality in this outcome area is good. This judgement has been made using available evidence including a visit to this service. The Home had a group of appropriately recruited and trained staff to ensure that residents were safe and their needs were met. EVIDENCE: The staffing rotas were examined and these indicated that staffing levels were adequate. Most residents and relatives who responded to the postal survey said that staff are available when they are needed. One commented, “There are always staff around”. The two case tracked residents commented that they were happy with staffing levels, though one said, “Staff say they are short staffed at night”. The Manager stated that she was aware of this claim and had spoken to staff about the matter but found nothing to support it. The Manager’s pre-inspection questionnaire showed that 62 of care staff had achieved a National Vocational Qualification (NVQ) in Care at level 2. This met the 50 level required by the National Minimum Standards. The file of a recently appointed member of staff was examined. Matters relating to her recruitment were satisfactory, except that the Home’s job application form did not ask the applicant to provide details of ‘any criminal offences in respect of which (s)he has been cautioned by a constable and which, at the time the caution was given, (s)he admitted’, as required by Schedule 2 of the Regulations. Criminal Records Bureau (CRB) checks were all The Park Nursing Home DS0000069389.V338752.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 17 in place. All staff had received a copy of the General Social Care Council’s (GSCC) Code of Conduct. The Manager stated that most staff had been provided with mandatory training, except that only 60 of staff had received First Aid training. There was no ’at a glance’ training matrix available for quick confirmation of this. The pre-inspection questionnaire indicated that staff were being provided with a wide range of training courses of relevance to their needs. These included courses on dementia, sight and hearing loss. Staff training in low vision awareness had led to notices in the Home appearing in black printing on a yellow background for increased contrast and easier reading. The care assistant spoken to confirmed she had attended a number of training courses over the previous 12 months. There was evidence of induction and foundation training meeting the specifications laid down by ‘Skills for Care’. The Park Nursing Home DS0000069389.V338752.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 18 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. JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for the following standard(s): 31,33,35 & 38 Quality in this outcome area is excellent. This judgement has been made using available evidence including a visit to this service. The Home was well managed so that residents were protected and their best interests were promoted by the systems in place. EVIDENCE: The Manager said that she had attained the Registered Managers Award and had 23 years nursing experience of working with older people. The care assistant spoken to said that, “I like the atmosphere here...residents and staff get on really well”. One resident stated, “The Manager is very nice, lovely”. Other aspects of Standard 32 were not assessed on this occasion. Records of the monthly, unannounced audit visits to the Home, undertaken on behalf of the registered provider, were examined and found to be satisfactory. Additionally, in-house Self Assessment Checklists were being completed. The The Park Nursing Home DS0000069389.V338752.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 19 Home’s three monthly Business Plan was examined. Ways in which this could be improved were discussed with the Manager. Satisfaction questionnaires were being sent to residents and their relatives and a follow-up letter sent giving feedback on the collated responses. Regular Residents Meetings were held and, recently, the first combined Residents/Relatives Meeting was held. Minutes of this meeting showed a good level of participation and constructive ideas raised. The Manager said that a monthly Newsletter was planned. In the entrance hall were documents giving visitors opportunity to complete a questionnaire on a range of subjects. The Home’s approach to quality assurance is commendable. Residents’ personal money was being securely held. There was a robust system in place for recording all transactions, including double signatures against each and regular balance checks being made. Two case tracked resident’s monies were cross-referenced against the current balance figure and were found to be correct. Cleaning materials were being safely stored in two locked cupboards, together with Product Information Sheets. A risk assessment of the cleaning materials had just been completed. The pre-inspection questionnaire showed that equipment was being checked and maintained appropriately. Good food hygiene practices were being followed. Requirements and recommendations made by the Environmental Health Officer, at his last visit in January 2007, had been carried out. The Fire Officer made no requirements at his last visit in September 2006. Six-monthly Health & Safety audits were being carried out. The Manager said that a Health & Safety topic is covered at every monthly staff meeting. The Park Nursing Home DS0000069389.V338752.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 20 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 X X 3 X X N/A HEALTH AND PERSONAL CARE Standard No Score 7 3 8 3 9 2 10 3 11 X DAILY LIFE AND SOCIAL ACTIVITIES Standard No Score 12 3 13 3 14 3 15 4 COMPLAINTS AND PROTECTION Standard No Score 16 3 17 X 18 3 3 X X X X X X 3 STAFFING Standard No Score 27 3 28 3 29 3 30 3 MANAGEMENT AND ADMINISTRATION Standard No 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 Score 3 X 4 X 3 X X 3 The Park Nursing Home DS0000069389.V338752.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 21 Are there any outstanding requirements from the last inspection? N/A 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 OP9 Regulation 13(2) Requirement Timescale for action 01/07/07 2. OP9 18(1)(c) There must be an accurate record of all medication received and administered by the Home, including... • recording all instances of medicine administration, • using defined codes for any non-administration, • recording dates when medicines are received. in order to ensure that people receive the correct levels of medication and that an audit trail can be followed. All staff administering medication 01/09/07 must be trained and assessed as competent to meet the health needs of the people they care for. 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 Good Practice Recommendations DS0000069389.V338752.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 22 The Park Nursing Home 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. Standard OP7 OP8 OP9 OP12 OP18 OP18 OP29 8. 9. 10. 11. OP30 OP30 OP33 OP33 Care planning documents should be both signed and dated. The new risk assessment documents should be completed to ensure that health risks are clearly recorded and consistently monitored. Detailed individual resident protocols, for the administration of prn medication, should be developed. The Home should continue to pursue its plans to improve activities for residents and trips out. Staff should be reminded about the Home’s ‘Whistle Blowing’ policy. The Operational Manager should follow through her plan to run an in-house training session on the topic of ‘Safeguarding Adults’. The Home’s job application form should ask the applicant to provide details of ‘any criminal offences in respect of which (s)he has been cautioned by a constable and which, at the time the caution was given, (s)he admitted’ All staff should be provided with some training in First Aid. An ’at a glance’ staff training matrix should developed. Business Plans would be improved by broadening the range of topics covered and setting target dates. Satisfaction questionnaires should be sent to staff and external professionals. The Park Nursing Home DS0000069389.V338752.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 23 Commission for Social Care Inspection Derbyshire Area Office Cardinal Square Nottingham Road Derby DE1 3QT 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 Park Nursing Home DS0000069389.V338752.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 24 - 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!