Please wait

Please note that the information on this website is now out of date. It is planned that we will update and relaunch, but for now is of historical interest only and we suggest you visit cqc.org.uk

Inspection on 28/06/06 for Thurleston Residential Home

Also see our care home review for Thurleston Residential Home for more information

This inspection was carried out on 28th June 2006.

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

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

What follows are excerpts from this inspection report. For more information read the full report on the next tab.

What the care home does well

The service users stated that they were satisfied with the meals and the home does offer a wide selection of food. The staff stated that they have a clear understanding of their roles and responsibilities and the manager supported them with their jobs. The service users are well dressed and presented and have the choice whether they stay in their rooms or sit in the lounge.

What has improved since the last inspection?

Since the last inspection the home has appointed a new manager who has arranged staff meetings and commenced supervision. The home has undergone some redecoration with the dining room and lounge areas improved with new furniture and furnishings. An activities programme has commenced with service users able to choose if they wish to be involved. Care staff share this responsibility and have the use of appropriate equipment and material, purchased by the owner. The cook and her staff prepare good wholesome homemade food and have a selection of fresh vegetables and meat to use. The menus are reviewed regularly and the service users were positive about the selection of meals and the availability of a cooked breakfast. The home has demonstrated that complaints are investigated appropriately and there is a death and dying policy for all staff to follow.

What the care home could do better:

The home has demonstrated that they have addressed a number of requirements from the previous inspection. Requirements have been made from this inspection including, that all care plans must identify the care needs of each person and how those needs are to be met. Some aspects of staffing are required to be improved for example, that of the employment of a person to prepare and serve the tea time meals. Training and development must be arranged although some training has been attended, there are staff who require training and updates to ensure they have the skills and knowledge to meet the needs of the service users.

CARE HOMES FOR OLDER PEOPLE Thurleston Residential Home Limited Whitton Park Thurleston Lane Ipswich Suffolk IP1 6TJ Lead Inspector Iain Smith Unannounced Inspection 28th June 2006 10:00 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 DS0000060474.V301294.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. DS0000060474.V301294.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 3 SERVICE INFORMATION Name of service Thurleston Residential Home Limited Address Whitton Park Thurleston Lane Ipswich Suffolk IP1 6TJ 01473 240325 01473 240325 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) Guyton Care Homes Ltd Post Vacant Care Home 24 Category(ies) of Old age, not falling within any other category registration, with number (24) of places DS0000060474.V301294.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 4 SERVICE INFORMATION Conditions of registration: 1. 1 One named person under the age of 65 as detailed in the application for variation dated 2nd February 2006. 20th January 2006 Date of last inspection Brief Description of the Service: Thurleston Residential Home is registered as a care home for older people. The home can accommodate up to a maximum of 24 service users. Guyton Care Home Ltd, with Mr Balaratnan as the Responsible Individual, owns the home. The home is located to the north east of Ipswich about three miles from the town centre. The easiest approach is from the Norwich Road and Whitton Church Lane areas. The home was first registered in July 1996. It is a single storey building located in parkland, some of which is lawned and includes shrubs and ornamental trees. Some of the rooms look over adjacent fields, others over the grounds. The whole setting is tranquil and pleasant. There is parking at the front of the home. The original bungalow has been developed with the addition of ten bedrooms. The building is of wooden design built on stilts and incorporating beamed walls and ceilings. The main lounge and dining areas are located within the original bungalow and another lounge is situated in the new part of the home. DS0000060474.V301294.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 5 SUMMARY This is an overview of what the inspector found during the inspection. This was an unannounced key inspection of Thurleston Care Home and took place between the hours of 08.30 and 14.30 on Wednesday 28th June 2006. The inspection followed the older persons methodology where all the key standards were assessed in addition to standard 7, care planning. The inspection included tracking two service users and speaking with others, assessing records, policies and procedures. Three members of staff were selected to interview including the manager and their files were examined. A tour of the premises took place and additional staff to the manager was spoken to during the day. This included staff from catering, housekeeping and the maintenance person. The newly appointed manager Leanne Marjoram was present throughout the inspection and contributed fully to the process. The owner Mr Balaratnan was present for part of the inspection. 23 service users and 16 staff were sent questionnaires two weeks prior to the inspection date. 91 of service users and 62.5 of staff returned their questionnaires and some of the comments are included in this report. What the service does well: What has improved since the last inspection? Since the last inspection the home has appointed a new manager who has arranged staff meetings and commenced supervision. The home has undergone some redecoration with the dining room and lounge areas improved with new furniture and furnishings. An activities programme has commenced with service users able to choose if they wish to be involved. Care staff share this responsibility and have the use of appropriate equipment and material, purchased by the owner. The cook and her staff prepare good wholesome homemade food and have a selection of fresh vegetables and meat to use. The menus are reviewed regularly and the service users were positive about the selection of meals and the availability of a cooked breakfast. DS0000060474.V301294.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 6 The home has demonstrated that complaints are investigated appropriately and there is a death and dying policy for all staff to follow. 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. DS0000060474.V301294.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 DS0000060474.V301294.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 8 Choice of Home The intended outcomes for Standards 1 – 6 are: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Prospective service users have the information they need to make an informed choice about where to live. Each service user has a written contract/ statement of terms and conditions with the home. No service user moves into the home without having had his/her needs assessed and been assured that these will be met. Service users and their representatives know that the home they enter will meet their needs. Prospective service users and their relatives and friends have an opportunity to visit and assess the quality, facilities and suitability of the home. Service users assessed and referred solely for intermediate care are helped to maximise their independence and return home. The Commission considers Standards 3 and 6 the key standards to be inspected at least once during a 12 month period. JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for the following standard(s): 3 and 6. No service user moves in to the home without having their care needs assessed. The home does not provide intermediate care. The outcome group is therefore judged as good. This judgement has been made using available evidence including a visit to this service. EVIDENCE: The home demonstrated that each of the three service users files that were examined each contained a pre admission assessment. A person trained to do so undertook the assessment and the home nominates a senior carer to visit prospective service users if the manager is unable to attend. The home had recently applied for and the CSCI agreed to a variation to admit a service user under the age of 65 years. There was a pre admission assessment completed in the care files and this identified the persons care needs. The home was able to establish that these care needs could be met by the home. The standard relating to intermediate care is not relevant for this home. DS0000060474.V301294.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 at least once during a 12 month period. JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for the following standard(s): 7,8,9,10. The service users health, personal and social care needs are not set out appropriately in the care plans. The staff adhere and operate from the medication policy and procedure. The outcome group is therefore judged as adequate. This judgement has been made using available evidence including a visit to this service. EVIDENCE: Three care plans were examined of service users with a range of care needs. The pre admission assessment identified the care needs prior to admission. A number of the care needs were not transferred on to the care plan in the home. Therefore the staff were unable to deliver care from an informed and agreed plan. The manager stated that she is reviewing all care plans and there was evidence in another care plan that this was the case. Reviews of the service users care was evidenced in the three care plans. No changes were seen in the care plans therefore all changes, as the result of a review, should be included in an updated care plan. One of the service users who were tracked presented with behavioural problems, the care plan failed to state the care needs and approach to be taken with this individual. DS0000060474.V301294.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 10 Risk assessments, for example manual handling and health and safety were included in the care plan. The Commission for Social Care Inspection received a complaint and requested that the manager investigated it. The elements of the complaint the absence of a named service users review and the failure of appropriate action taken to agree the appropriate care for one service user following a serious incident involving the injury to another service user. On investigation and examining the documentation there was evidence that the service user had had a review with their social worker. The outcome of the review was to recommend the service user for admission to an establishment appropriate to meet their changed needs. Therefore, the complaint was satisfactorily investigated and elements of the complaint were addressed. The medication policy was examined and the breakfast medication round was observed. A senior carer undertook the medicine round. The trolley was secured in a separate room and was seen to be taken around the home. The Medication Administration Record (MAR) was checked by the member of staff prior to administering the medication. The tablets were given to the service user and the MAR sheet signed following the administration. This was assessed as appropriate practice. The health care needs for the three service users who were tracked were assessed as appropriate. The manager stated that she ensures the service users have access to health care services, for example that each service user was registered with a GP and that they had access to a chiropodist. There was evidence in the care plans that each service user had a GP. The staff were seen to respect the privacy and dignity of service users. Examples were that staff knocked on the bedroom doors of service users before entering and addressed them by their preferred name. Service users stated they were wearing their own clothes and one stated that ‘I can wear what I chose in the morning.’ The home has produced a death and dying policy and staff are made aware of this. DS0000060474.V301294.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 at least once during a 12 month period. JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for the following standard(s): 12,13,14 and 15. Service users find lifestyle experience in the home matches their expectations and preferences in addition to maintaining contact with their families and friends. Service users receive wholesome, appealing and balanced diets in their preferred location. The outcome group is therefore judged as good. This judgement has been made using available evidence including a visit to this service. EVIDENCE: The home has arranged for all care staff to be involved in an activities programme. The programme is displayed in the corridor of the home and indicates a variety of activities on 4 days each week. There is a reminiscence session with appropriate materials for staff to use and the cook has cooking sessions on a Tuesday. Three service users stated that they are involved in the activities, in addition to a number of service users questionnaires indicating that they were involved. One service user stated that they did not want to be involved. One family member was seen in the home at the time of the inspection. One service user stated that ‘My family visit me nearly every day and I can see them in my room.’ There were two occasions the service users demonstrated that they had choice in the home. The first example was when a service user chose to have their DS0000060474.V301294.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 12 meal in their room and the other related to activities. The service user chose not to be involved. The owner, manager and the cook had recently reviewed the meals and mealtimes. There was evidence that at breakfast time a cooked meal was available. There was bacon, egg, toast and cereals. There were eight service users at the breakfast tables and one stated that ‘I can have what l want.’ The manager stated that each service user was encouraged to get up for breakfast. Those service users who wanted to stay in their rooms would be taken their meals. The cook stated that the new manager had ‘lifted the place and gives support to the menus.’ There was evidence on the tables, each of them set with appropriate cloths and cutlery, of fruit and sweets. These were available throughout the day for all service users. There was evidence of adequate supplies of food and provisions. The cook stated that she ordered fresh supplies of fruit and vegetables in addition to fresh meat. The lunchtime routine was observed. The meals were prepared from the service users choice from the menus that were taken around in the morning. The lunch was a choice of braised steak or sausage in gravy with vegetables. One service user was served curry, a choice of the person on a regular basis. The meals were plated in the kitchen and stored in a hot trolley and this in turn was taken from the kitchen to the dining area where care staff would take each plate to the service user. For the service users tea time the cook had prepared sandwiches before finishing their duty at 2.00 in the afternoon. Discussion took place with the cook and care staff and they stated that the care staff prepare the soup at teatime and served it to service users with the sandwiches. Therefore at teatime, the care staff were responsible for both the care and the catering arrangements and stated that they would have to give priority to those service users who required personal care. The catering policy was examined and stated that care staff and others involved in direct care giving should not be used to assist with the preparation and cooking of food. This section is also referred to in Standard 27. DS0000060474.V301294.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 inspected at least once during a 12 month period. JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for the following standard(s): 16 and 18. The registered provider ensures that there is a clear, accessible complaints procedure. The provider ensures that service users are safeguarded from abuse with relevant procedures although all staff required the appropriate training. This outcome group is judged as adequate. This judgement has been made using available evidence including a visit to this service. EVIDENCE: The complaints log was examined and found there were no new entries since January 2006.The complaints procedure stated the name, address and telephoned number for the Commission for Social Care Inspection. One complaint was received in the CSCI office a month prior to the inspection. The manager was requested by CSCI to investigate the complaint and she completed this appropriately within the requested timescale. The elements of the complaint are included in the main body of the report under the health and personal care section. Staff records were examined to assess if the Protection of Vulnerable Adults (POVA) training was completed. Five staff had completed the training. The home has a POVA policy in place. Four of the staff questionnaires received stated that they had not received the training. One staff member in their questionnaire commented that the home are starting to arrange training therefore the manager stated that she was planning that all staff would attend POVA training and specific dates would be arranged. The three s spoken to during the inspection stated that they were aware of the homes POVA policy. DS0000060474.V301294.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 14 DS0000060474.V301294.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 15 Environment The intended outcomes for Standards 19 – 26 are: 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. Service users live in a safe, well-maintained environment. Service users have access to safe and comfortable indoor and outdoor communal facilities. Service users have sufficient and suitable lavatories and washing facilities. Service users have the specialist equipment they require to maximise their independence. Service users’ own rooms suit their needs. Service users live in safe, comfortable bedrooms with their own possessions around them. Service users live in safe, comfortable surroundings. The home is clean, pleasant and hygienic. The Commission considers Standards 19 and 26 the key standards to be inspected at least once during a 12 month period. JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for the following standard(s): 19 and 26. Service users live in a safe environment where the home continues to improve with a planned redecoration programme. The home is clean, pleasant and hygienic. The outcome group is therefore judged as good. This judgement has been made using available evidence including a visit to the service. EVIDENCE: The home has undergone a considerable redecoration programme. The dining room, lounge and corridor between the kitchen and dining room have had a complete redecoration. The lounge is bright with the colour coordination of the new curtains and furnishings. Some of the bedrooms are redecorated with new furnishings noted in one room. The grounds are kept tidy and the maintenance person stated that he cuts the grass and tends to the flowerbeds weekly. The trees to the side of the home have been trimmed therefore allowing additional light in to the bedrooms at the side of the building. The owner has reported in the Regulation 26 monthly reports, the improvements that have been made to the home. DS0000060474.V301294.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 16 The maintenance person stated that he checks and maintains the home on a weekly basis during the three days he works. No records of the maintenance were examined at this inspection. The wheelchairs that were seen had footplates. The laundry was visited and found to be clean and tidy. The home has addressed a previous requirement for the laundry to be cleared of rubbish and to lag the hot pipes. The washing machine has a sluicing programme and the floor of the laundry has an impermeable floor to ensure spillages can be cleaned up appropriately. DS0000060474.V301294.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 17 Staffing The intended outcomes for Standards 27 – 30 are: 27. 28. 29. 30. Service users’ needs are met by the numbers and skill mix of staff. Service users are in safe hands at all times. Service users are supported and protected by the home’s recruitment policy and practices. Staff are trained and competent to do their jobs. The Commission consider all the above are key standards to be inspected at least once during a 12 month period. JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for the following standard(s): 27,28,29 and 30. The numbers of staff were not appropriate to meet all the needs of the service users. Training programmes are appropriate but require all staff to attend the relevant training. The outcome group therefore is judged as poor. This judgement has been made using available evidence including a visit to this service. EVIDENCE: The home is not a nursing home therefore they do not employ trained nurses. The arrangements that the home has to cover duties include the employment of a senior carer to take charge of the morning and afternoon shift. The morning and afternoon shifts will include an additional two care staff and a total of two care staff at night. There is no senior carer on at night therefore if a medication is required to be given and the staff member has not received training then the service user may have to wait until the morning shift reports for duty. Therefore the home must ensure that either a senior carer is employed or the night staff are appropriately trained to meet the needs of the service users. The staff rota was examined and this was found to be clear with the names of those staff on duty and the managers times stated each day. The manager works as a supernumerary person and supports all the staff. She stated that she meets with the night staff regularly prior to the night staff completing their duty. The home have recently employed housekeeping staff and on the day of the inspection two staff were on duty. This is an improvement in housekeeping staff since the last inspection. DS0000060474.V301294.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 18 The catering staff report for duty at 8.00 and prepare breakfast and an assistant is employed to support the cook. When the catering staff finishes duty, the care staff are expected to care for the service users and serve tea. Therefore the home must ensure that staff are employed appropriately and have separate duties for example care and catering must not be mixed. Three of the home staff has completed their NVQ training, one at level 3 and two at level 2. Therefore the home has achieved 16.6 of their NVQ training. Two staff files were examined to assess that the appropriate documentation was included. Both files included two references, an enhanced Criminal Records Bureau (CRB) and training records. There was some evidence of training that staff had completed. Examples were POVA, health and safety, dementia care and food hygiene. The manager stated that she is compiling a training programme and identifying what each member of staff had achieved. Key training that some staff required included medication training, basic food hygiene and supervisory skills training. DS0000060474.V301294.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 19 Management and Administration The intended outcomes for Standards 31 – 38 are: 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. Service users live in a home which is run and managed by a person who is fit to be in charge, of good character and able to discharge his or her responsibilities fully. Service users benefit from the ethos, leadership and management approach of the home. The home is run in the best interests of service users. Service users are safeguarded by the accounting and financial procedures of the home. Service users’ financial interests are safeguarded. Staff are appropriately supervised. Service users’ rights and best interests are safeguarded by the home’s record keeping, policies and procedures. The health, safety and welfare of service users and staff are promoted and protected. The Commission considers Standards 31, 33, 35 and 38 the key standards to be inspected at least once during a 12 month period. JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for the following standard(s): 31,33,35,36 and 38. The health, safety and welfare of the services users under this section are promoted. Staff have some opportunities to be trained and developed. The outcome group is therefore judged as adequate. This judgement has been made using available evidence including a visit to this service. EVIDENCE: The manager, Leanne Marjoram, was appointed in May 2006.She stated that one staff meeting has been held and others will be planned. She is in day-today charge of the home and is supported by the owner who visits the home weekly. One member of staff stated that ‘the manager is supportive and comes up with some good ideas.’ The cook stated that ‘she helps with the menus and has lifted the place.’ Regulation 26 notices are submitted by the owner to the CSCI and evidence that service users are spoken to. They are asked about the service, food and DS0000060474.V301294.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 20 environment. The owner was present for part of the inspection and was seen to be interacting with the service users and staff. There was some evidence of staff supervisions. The staff questionnaires stated that some staff did not receive supervision. The manager stated that she would be meeting with the senior carers for supervision and then training them to supervise a number of care staff on a regular basis. The arrangement and management of service users monies at the home is the responsibility of the manager and administrator. The administrator is based at the other Guyton Care Homes establishment, Beech Lawn. The administrator generates all invoices although at the home the manager will keep records of any transactions with receipts. One service user is responsible for their own monies. The home has facilities for the safe storage of any cash they may have. The safe storage of hazardous substances was evidenced with the home keeping these in a locked cupboard. All accidents and incidents are recorded and the relevant books were seen and assessed as in order. Health and safety training was completed by a number of staff. DS0000060474.V301294.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 21 SCORING OF OUTCOMES This page summarises the assessment of the extent to which the National Minimum Standards for Care Homes for Older People have been met and uses the following scale. The scale ranges from: 4 Standard Exceeded 2 Standard Almost Met (Commendable) (Minor Shortfalls) 3 Standard Met 1 Standard Not Met (No Shortfalls) (Major Shortfalls) “X” in the standard met box denotes standard not assessed on this occasion “N/A” in the standard met box denotes standard not applicable CHOICE OF HOME Standard No Score 1 2 3 4 5 6 ENVIRONMENT Standard No Score 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 X X 3 X X N/A HEALTH AND PERSONAL CARE Standard No Score 7 2 8 3 9 3 10 3 11 3 DAILY LIFE AND SOCIAL ACTIVITIES Standard No Score 12 3 13 3 14 3 15 3 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 2 28 2 29 3 30 2 MANAGEMENT AND ADMINISTRATION Standard No 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 Score 3 3 3 X 3 2 X 3 DS0000060474.V301294.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 22 Are there any outstanding requirements from the last inspection? NO STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS This section sets out the actions, which must be taken so that the registered person/s meets the Care Standards Act 2000, Care Homes Regulations 2001 and the National Minimum Standards. The Registered Provider(s) must comply with the given timescales. No. 1. Standard OP7 Regulation 15.1 Timescale for action The registered person must 28/08/06 ensure that all service users care plans specify how their needs are to be met. The registered person must 28/08/06 ensure that (a) there are sufficient numbers of staff employed to cover all meal times and (b) night staff are employed and trained to meet the needs of the service users. The registered person must 28/11/06 ensure that staff are trained to understand and deal appropriately with the suspicion of abuse. (This is a requirement from a previous inspection) All staff must be trained for the 28/11/06 work they perform therefore the registered person must ensure appropriate training is arranged. The registered person must 28/11/06 arrange appropriate and adequate supervision for all care staff. Requirement 2. OP27 18.1 (a) 3. OP30 18.1 (a) 4. OP30 18.1 (a) 5. OP36 18.2 DS0000060474.V301294.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 23 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 OP28 Good Practice Recommendations The registered person should ensure that there is a minimum of 50 of care staff trained to NVQ level 2 or equivalent. DS0000060474.V301294.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 24 Commission for Social Care Inspection Suffolk Area Office St Vincent House Cutler Street Ipswich Suffolk IP1 1UQ 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 DS0000060474.V301294.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 25 - 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!