CARE HOME ADULTS 18-65
The Rookery Mill Common Road Walcott Norwich Norfolk NR12 0PF Lead Inspector
Mrs Judith Huggins Unannounced Inspection 4th August 2006 12:00 The Rookery DS0000027307.V307590.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 Rookery DS0000027307.V307590.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 Rookery DS0000027307.V307590.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 3 SERVICE INFORMATION
Name of service The Rookery Address Mill Common Road Walcott Norwich Norfolk NR12 0PF 01692 650707 01692 650330 janithhomes.com@btconnect.com www.janithhomes.org Janith Homes Limited 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) Mr Alfred Finlay Care Home 30 Category(ies) of Learning disability (30) registration, with number of places The Rookery DS0000027307.V307590.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 4 SERVICE INFORMATION
Conditions of registration: Date of last inspection 19th January 2006 Brief Description of the Service: The Rookery is a care home providing personal care and accommodation for 30 adults with a learning disability. The service is owned and operated by Janith Homes Ltd, who also operate three smaller services for the same client group within the same area. The Rookery stands in a rural area on the outskirts of the Norfolk seaside village of Walcott. It is based around a small farm where “rare breed” animals are raised. The living accommodation is largely in the main house with some separate purpose built and converted units. Bedrooms are currently a mix of single and double occupancy. The complex also encompasses un-registered holiday accommodation which people use with their own carers. The service operates as a community with people attending for day services. There is also a strong artistic ethos with one of the farm barns having been converted into a large studio where artists work with and alongside service users. Fees are from £2720 to £5688 per month, depending on need. There are additional charges for transport to requested activities (but not for health care appointments), hairdressing, dry cleaning and personal spending. The website (newly developed) and service users’ guide say that the inspection reports are available on request at the home. The Rookery DS0000027307.V307590.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 5 SUMMARY
This is an overview of what the inspector found during the inspection. The visit to the home was unannounced, and lasted almost 7 hours. During the visit, the inspector spoke to four members of staff, the registered manager and general manager, and three residents. Other information was collected from the comment cards returned (five from relatives and twenty nine from residents), the pre-inspection questionnaire, from records and from what the inspector saw and heard in the home. What the service does well: What has improved since the last inspection?
Lots of improvements have been made as the result of the management team thinking about the kind of work the home does. They have not needed to be told about these things during visits from the inspector. The management team come up with some better ways of interviewing and taking on new staff, that make sure the process is fair. They are also looking at training other senior staff to make sure that they are able to understand equal opportunities and put this into practice. Mr Finlay and the general manager have worked very hard on this area. A website has been developed. This has lots of information about the home and is another way of helping people to help make decisions about whether they want to live at the home. They have also changed some of the paperwork for people who might want to live at the home to make sure that lots of information about their needs is collected. This means that plans can be put in place quickly when people first start visiting the home, to make sure people’s needs are met
The Rookery DS0000027307.V307590.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 6 A catering committee has been set up and people living at the home can make suggestions about the food. Staff write down what has been talked about, so that suggestions can be looked at and acted on. The instructions for staff about how to give out and record medicines have been updated. This was suggested at another inspection. What they could do better: Please contact the provider for advice of actions taken in response to this inspection. The report of this inspection is available from enquiries@csci.gsi.gov.uk or by contacting your local CSCI office. The Rookery DS0000027307.V307590.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 Rookery DS0000027307.V307590.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 at least once during a 12 month period. JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for the following standard(s): 1 and 2 Quality in this outcome area is good. This judgement has been made using available evidence including a visit to this service. Prospective residents have the information they need to choose where to live and their needs are assessed. When the video information is available and can be used to give information to people about what life in the home is like, standard 1 will be exceeded. EVIDENCE: The manager says that work has been completed to the website for the company. This provides information about all of the services offered by the provider. Mr Finlay also says that there are plans to make videos of a “day” in each home, so that people looking at the home would have a better idea about what was on offer and what the home might be like. This will need the permission and help of existing residents but would be an additional way of providing information to help people with different levels of understanding. A new assessment form has been devised, collecting a good range of relevant information. If fully and thoroughly completed it would provide useful information from which to devise a care plan. There is a “short term” care plan form which the manager says has been devised to provide a more structured
The Rookery DS0000027307.V307590.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 9 approach to care when prospective residents have completed a programme of tea visits and then progressed to stays of two or three days. Records show that assessments of need are carried out before people are admitted to the home. The manager says that written confirmation of the suitability of the placement is given at the end of the trial period following admission. However, records of early involvement and enquiries do not show that residents or their representatives have copies of the service users’ guide. The manager says this is issued to people but there is no checklist to act as a reminder. A recommendation has been made. The Rookery DS0000027307.V307590.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 10 Individual Needs and Choices
The intended outcomes for Standards 6 – 10 are: 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. Service users know their assessed and changing needs and personal goals are reflected in their individual Plan. Service users make decisions about their lives with assistance as needed. Service users are consulted on, and participate in, all aspects of life in the home. Service users are supported to take risks as part of an independent lifestyle. Service users know that information about them is handled appropriately, and that their confidences are kept. The Commission considers Standards 6, 7 and 9 the key standards to be inspected at least once during a 12 month period. 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. There are care plans and risk assessments in place, although these need to provide clearer guidance about encouraging positive behaviour. They also need to show why and how decisions are made on behalf of residents. EVIDENCE: Care plan files contain information about strengths and needs for each person. However, they do not clearly set out strategies for managing behaviours that challenge, to ensure a consistent approach by staff, and to focus on positive behaviour. A requirement has been made. Records show sanctions have been imposed without appropriate supporting risk assessment in all cases, and without professional involvement from outside the home (e.g. psychologist, community learning disability team). On one occasion noted this was because the person had chosen not to “join in” with an activity. This impacts on the outcome for standards 6, 7, 16 and 23. A requirement has been made.
The Rookery DS0000027307.V307590.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 11 Residents have keyworkers, who maintain daily records for each person. One person spoken to says that they did not choose their keyworker, staff did this. They also told the inspector that they were shy of telling their keyworker what they thought or felt. However, they can, they say, talk to one of the deputy managers. All five relatives completing comment cards say that they are kept informed and consulted about care. A staff member spoken to has had some in depth training in communication and the importance of this for individual residents is understood by staff, based on discussion. There are plans to increase the amount of “signing” in use to enhance communication with residents who find this difficult. This development would be welcome. Staff spoken to understand that residents may become frustrated and angry if they are not able to make themselves understood. There are risk assessments for many of the activities residents engage in. This includes, in one case, assessment for one person going out unaccompanied. In some cases residents have signed these. However, there are risks for one person identified in a report from a previous holiday. There was nothing in the care plan file to show previous advice and incidents have been taken into account to develop relevant risk assessments and management plans for the next holiday. The manager says that this may have been in the possession of the staff member accompanying the resident on their trip. A requirement has been made. The Rookery DS0000027307.V307590.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 at least once during a 12 month period. JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for the following standard(s): 12, 13, 15, 16 and 17 Quality in this outcome area is good. This judgement has been made using available evidence including a visit to this service. Residents have opportunities for meaningful occupation, participation in the local community, and maintaining relationships. There could be improvement in showing how rights are respected at all times. EVIDENCE: Discussion with the manager and residents shows that people have the opportunity to participate in a range of activities. This includes artwork, work on the farm and in house activities. Records also show that some people access education at Paston College (subject to funding). Discussion with residents, staff and records, shows that residents make use of community facilities. On the evening of the inspection, several residents were looking forward to the planned disco. Records show that residents are able to have holidays (depending on their needs), or recreational days out. Three people confirmed that they were
The Rookery DS0000027307.V307590.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 13 shortly to go away on holiday. One person volunteered information that they were worried about this because of being so far from home. Records show that this has been raised recently. The person concerned says that they find they are “shy” sometimes when it comes to saying to their keyworker what they feel about things, and so it is unclear how positive a choice it was for the person concerned to go on the trip. (See also standards re risk assessment.) All relatives completing comment cards say that they are welcome in the home at any time and can visit in private. A resident spoken to confirms that staff help with writing letters, and that they are in contact with their family by telephone. 19 residents completing comment cards with help from staff, say that their family can visit. One has no family. Residents’ sexuality is recognised within care plans and rights outlined in the service users’ guide. Comment has been made elsewhere about the imposition of sanctions and that the restrictions are not appropriately agreed with other relevant parties and recorded within the care plan. Records show that the choice of the person concerned, not to join in an activity, was not always respected and resulted in sanctions being imposed. One of the sanctions recorded was the removal of the person’s key, despite them being deemed capable of handling it. On the occasion the person would not join in, the television was also removed from their room. Residents say that they like the food. On the evening of the inspection, tea was comprised of choices from bread rolls, sausage rolls and salad accompaniments. This was followed by fruit crumble and custard. Residents were heard being offered selections. The statement of purpose says that the policy is to ensure that home life is centred around “small autonomous units”, with opportunities for “community living placements in supported living bungalows”. Some people eat meals in the dining room adjacent to the kitchen. Others collect them from the kitchen and carry them to their own bungalow accommodation on covered trays. A recommendation is made. The manager has recently started up a “catering committee” involving residents, and which has already resulted in some suggestions for change. This includes how the menu is displayed to be accessible to people who do not read well. This is a positive development. The Rookery DS0000027307.V307590.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 at least once during a 12 month period. JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for the following standard(s): 18, 19 and 20 Quality in this outcome area is good. This judgement has been made using available evidence including a visit to this service. Residents receive personal support in the way they need, their health care needs are met, and their medication is managed appropriately. EVIDENCE: Records and discussion with the manager show that residents attend medical appointments as necessary and that problems are referred appropriately. The staff group is mixed in age, and with both men and women employed so residents are able to receive assistance with personal care from same sex staff. Medication records were checked briefly and those seen did not show omissions. The policy was revised in February 2006 and the practice of administration observed showed that it was being followed. One staff member spoken to confirms training via distance learning. Training records show that staff have received training. Medication is stored in the kitchen area and was properly secured when not in use. The Rookery DS0000027307.V307590.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 15 Concerns, Complaints and Protection
The intended outcomes for Standards 22 – 23 are: 22. 23. Service users feel their views are listened to and acted on. Service users are protected from abuse, neglect and self-harm. The Commission considers Standards 22, and 23 the key standards to be inspected at least once during a 12 month period. JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for the following standard(s): 22 and 23 Quality in this outcome area is adequate. This judgement has been made using available evidence including a visit to this service. Residents know who to speak to if they have concerns but do not feel staff always listen to them. Residents are protected from neglect and self-harm, although some improvements could be made to ensure that residents are not intimidated. EVIDENCE: The manager says work will be undertaken in the “in house” education sessions to make sure that people understand how to complain and what their rights are. Only one resident from 29 completed comment cards, could not identify anyone to go to if they had concerns. One person told the inspector that they were “shy” of talking to their keyworker about things, but could go to one of the deputy managers. 23 out of 29 people completing comment cards (79 ) say that staff listen to them .A recommendation is made. Three relatives completing comment cards (60 ) do not know what the complaints procedure is. The manager says these may be relatives of more long standing residents. However, the complaints procedure is posted in various locations around the home, and visitors could access the information that way. (The recommendation under standard 1 would cover this issue.) 24 out of 29 residents say in comment cards that they are treated well by staff – just over 82 . The remainder feel staff treat them well “sometimes”. Comment about sanctions used has been made elsewhere. The Rookery DS0000027307.V307590.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 16 Most residents feel safe at the home based on comment cards (26/29 –almost 90 ). Staff occasionally shout at residents based on observation, and feedback from staff and residents. Some residents need firm boundaries in order to develop and maintain appropriate behaviours and social skills. The home does provide care for some people who are both verbally and physically aggressive. However, good practice would be that staff only “shout” at residents to attract attention when someone is at immediate risk. The stated aims and objectives of the home are that staff would set examples of behaviour. These also say “maturity and self control” are expected of staff. A recommendation has been made. Some staff have received specific training in the protection of vulnerable adults based on the training information supplied and others have covered relevant issues in NVQ courses. The Rookery DS0000027307.V307590.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 at least once during a 12 month period. JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for the following standard(s): 24 and 30 Quality in this outcome area is good. This judgement has been made using available evidence including a visit to this service. Residents live in a comfortable and safe environment, which is clean and hygienic. EVIDENCE: Each of the key standards was inspected twice over the last three inspections and met. For this reason they were not inspected in detail on this fieldwork visit. The company has taken on a full time painter and decorator. There is also a maintenance person who attends to repairs in all the homes, and who keeps records of what he has done. The structure of the older building on the site has presented concerns in the past with subsidence, which the manager says has been attended to. There are regular tests of fire equipment and fire drills are practiced. Neither the environmental health officer nor the fire officer has raised any concerns with the Commission. The Rookery DS0000027307.V307590.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 18 Areas of the home seen were well decorated, clean and with no unpleasant odours, although a full tour was not made. Some rooms seen show that residents are encouraged to “personalise” them to reflect their interests and characters. The laundry is sited in an outside building so any soiled linen can be attended to in areas away from food preparation and serving areas. The pre-inspection questionnaire shows there is a policy on communicable diseases and infection control, and that this was revised in February. The Rookery DS0000027307.V307590.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 at least once during a 12 month period. JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for the following standard(s): 32, 34, 35 and 36 Quality in this outcome area is adequate. This judgement has been made using available evidence including a visit to this service. The management team have worked hard to develop good recruitment practices and are continuing to improve these. The ratio of staff with external qualifications has decreased due to staff changes but induction training and other relevant training is delivered. Staff are not clear that they receive supervision as set out in standards. EVIDENCE: Staff say that they have good training, including induction. The pre-inspection questionnaire and separate list of staff training shows that this is relevant for the needs of residents. One third of the staff, based on the questionnaire, have achieved NVQ level 2 or above. At the last inspection, over 50 of staff had achieved this qualification but staff changes have reduced the ratio. The manager says there is a dedicated training budget and given the commitment to training, is likely to improve on the existing ratio. No requirement is therefore made. Staff files show that references are taken up and enhanced Criminal Records Bureau disclosures are obtained as well as good employment histories. The application form has been revised to gather relevant information but does not
The Rookery DS0000027307.V307590.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 20 make clear that a full employment history is required and that applicants may need to add extra sheets of paper. There are minor shortfalls in statutory records only (e.g. up to date photographs are not present on all files). A requirement has been made. Disciplinary records are retained in files as set out in regulations, but the Commission has not been notified of allegations. A requirement has been made. The registered manager and general manager have had specific training in recruitment and selection. Discussion with the management team shows that policies and procedures for recruitment, including the equal opportunities policy, are being revised. This includes changes to how staff are to be interviewed more fairly. The manager says that other management staff are to receive the training in equal opportunities. The system is not yet in place but shows commitment to equality of opportunity and good recruitment practices. Two staff were asked if they had regular and formal supervision with a member of the management team. The agenda set out in standards was explained. They felt they did not, but did confirm they have appraisals and regular staff meetings. The manager says staff do receive supervision. Communication between the staff via handover and messages was said to be generally good. A recommendation has been made. The Rookery DS0000027307.V307590.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 at least once during a 12 month period. JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for the following standard(s): 37, 39 and 42 Quality in this outcome area is good. This judgement has been made using available evidence including a visit to this service. The home is well run. Residents’ views are taken into account in looking at the quality of the service, and their health and safety is promoted. EVIDENCE: The general manager for the home supports the registered manager in his role. Both have considerable experience in their roles, and based on discussion, participate in ongoing training. The pre-inspection questionnaire shows that policies and procedures are regularly reviewed and updated in response to changing need and legislation. Discussion with the management team shows they actively consider how they make changes known to staff (for example by staff meetings, signed memos) There are regular audits of service quality, and the management team are considering other methods than survey, for gathering information about the
The Rookery DS0000027307.V307590.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 22 standard of the service. See comments elsewhere about the “catering committee” involving residents. Residents’ meetings take place and discussions are recorded. Anonymous staff surveys could be useful given the size of the staff group. The suggestions made by residents or their representatives are recorded for action, although there is no timescale for considering and implementing these. Recommendations have been made. A sample of records associated with health and safety were seen. These show regular tests on the safety of appliances. There are risk assessments for areas within the home and use of equipment, and also a fire risk assessment. There is also guidance for using cleaning materials or chemicals safely. Staff training records show that there is training available to help staff to work safely. Based on the pre inspection questionnaire, 21 staff have current first aid certificates. The Rookery DS0000027307.V307590.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 3 2 3 3 x 4 x 5 x INDIVIDUAL NEEDS AND CHOICES Standard No 6 7 8 9 10 Score CONCERNS AND COMPLAINTS Standard No Score 22 3 23 2 ENVIRONMENT Standard No Score 24 3 25 x 26 x 27 x 28 x 29 x 30 3 STAFFING Standard No Score 31 x 32 2 33 x 34 2 35 3 36 2 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 3 13 3 14 x 15 3 16 2 17 1 PERSONAL AND HEALTHCARE SUPPORT Standard No 18 19 20 21 Score 3 3 3 x 3 x 3 x x 3 x The Rookery DS0000027307.V307590.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 24 Are there any outstanding requirements from the last inspection? NO STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS This section sets out the actions, which must be taken so that the registered person/s meets the Care Standards Act 2000, Care Homes Regulations 2001 and the National Minimum Standards. The Registered Provider(s) must comply with the given timescales. No. 1. Standard YA6 Regulation 12.1 to 3 15 Requirement The registered persons must ensure care plans set out clearly how individual needs are to be met by staff, taking into account the views of residents. The registered persons must ensure that reasonable decisions made by residents, are respected. The registered persons must set out how identified and recorded risks are to be minimised (in the interests of residents and also staff). The registered persons must maintain all statutory staffing records as set out in the Schedule 2 of the regulations as amended. The registered persons must notify the Commission of specified events in accordance with regulations. Timescale for action 31/08/06 2. YA7 YA16 YA23 YA9 12.2 to 4 31/08/06 3. 13.4 31/08/06 4. YA35 19, Sch 2 31/08/06 5. YA35 37 31/08/06 The Rookery DS0000027307.V307590.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 25 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. Refer to Standard YA1 Good Practice Recommendations The registered persons should introduce a system for checking all relevant information has been provided to prospective residents and/or their representatives, and in what form. The registered persons should increase opportunities for people in the smaller units to make better use of their facilities for the preparation of meals, to encourage development/practice of skills and better fulfil the stated aims and objectives for the home. The registered persons should involve the management team in a review of keyworker roles and relationships to canvass the views of residents who are able to express them and address deficits revealed in comment cards (specified in the report). The registered persons should increase the awareness of staff of the stated aims and objectives of the home and ensure practice matches expectations. The registered persons should increase the awareness of staff of the role and nature of supervision as set out in standards, and ensure this is delivered. The registered persons should introduce anonymous staff surveys to use when looking at the quality of the service. The registered persons should attach timescales and identify people responsible for looking at and - where practicable – implementing suggestions made as part of the survey process. 2. YA17 3. YA22 4. 5. 6. 7. YA23 YA36 YA39 YA39 The Rookery DS0000027307.V307590.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 26 Commission for Social Care Inspection Norfolk Area Office 3rd Floor Cavell House St. Crispins Road Norwich NR3 1YF 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 Rookery DS0000027307.V307590.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!