Inspection on 22/11/05 for Upaya Ananda

This inspection was carried out on 22nd November 2005.

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

Upaya Ananda 23/01/08

Upaya Ananda 20/03/07

Upaya Ananda 20/02/06

Upaya Ananda 23/03/05

Similar services:

Coopers Mill Ltd

Bramley Avenue (73)

Paradise Lodge

Grangewood

Newton Court (1-2)

Kings Lane (32)

Pemdale

Beau Sejour

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

CARE HOME ADULTS 18-65 Upaya Ananda 9 Station Road Hadleigh Suffolk IP7 5JF Lead Inspector Joe Staines Announced Inspection 22nd November 2005 14:00 Upaya Ananda DS0000061223.V261466.R01.S.doc Version 5.0 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 Upaya Ananda DS0000061223.V261466.R01.S.doc Version 5.0 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. Upaya Ananda DS0000061223.V261466.R01.S.doc Version 5.0 Page 3 SERVICE INFORMATION Name of service Upaya Ananda Address 9 Station Road Hadleigh Suffolk IP7 5JF 01473 822110 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) FUN Ms D Margerison Care Home 3 Category(ies) of Learning disability (3) registration, with number of places Upaya Ananda DS0000061223.V261466.R01.S.doc Version 5.0 Page 4 SERVICE INFORMATION Conditions of registration: Date of last inspection 23rd March 2005 Brief Description of the Service: Upaya Ananda is a large modern detached house, with garden and grounds, situated near the centre of Hadleigh. “Ananda” is the Sanskrit word for joy, and the project is operated by a charity called FUN. The statement of aims states that the home aims to provide “short fun breaks to young adults with learning difficulties”. Ananda provides a service to young adults, and some children between the ages of 16-18. The ratio of service users under the age of eighteen is less than is required for registration as a Children’s Home; therefore the registration category of Care Home is sufficient. Three single bedrooms provide accommodation; one of the bedrooms and one of the bathrooms is wheelchair accessible. Wheelchair accessible transport is provided by the home. The brochure states clearly that the home is not equipped to meet the needs of people with a history of violence, and does not provide nursing care. All placements are planned. Staffing is arranged by the manager on the basis of bookings for the month. Once the bookings are made, the manager identifies the most suitable staffing arrangements on the basis of the needs and preferences of service users. The home has a comprehensive set of policies and procedures, focused on ensuring the care provided is delivered in a way which promotes the ethos of the home, described in the policies manual as “….the rights of each guest to dignity, respect, self-determination and individuality. Upaya Ananda DS0000061223.V261466.R01.S.doc Version 5.0 Page 5 SUMMARY This is an overview of what the inspector found during the inspection. This announced inspection was the first of two inspections scheduled to take place in the inspection year, ending 31st March 2006. This inspection focussed on a number of the National Minimum Standards identified by the Commission for Social Care Inspection as required to be assessed during the inspection year. Those standards not assessed on this occasion, will be the subject of further scrutiny at the next inspection of the service. This service provides respite care only to a maximum of three people, or “guests” as the home prefers to refer to those using the service (this term will be used in the remainder of this report). The inspector spoke with two of the guests using the service on the day of the inspection. The project manager and registered manager were both present throughout the inspection, and informed the process. Four guests’ files were examined, including care plans, assessments, and other documentation relating to the care given at the home. Staff training and recruitment records were examined, as were a number of documents relating to health and safety checks. What the service does well: What has improved since the last inspection? The home has responded positively to the requirements and recommendations made at the last inspection. Personal belongings are no longer stored in communal areas. The two other issues had either already been resolved, or were not necessary, in the case of a Care of Substances Hazardous to Health (COSHH) assessment, as this was covered by the home’s risk assessment around hazardous substances. Upaya Ananda DS0000061223.V261466.R01.S.doc Version 5.0 Page 6 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. Upaya Ananda DS0000061223.V261466.R01.S.doc Version 5.0 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 Upaya Ananda DS0000061223.V261466.R01.S.doc Version 5.0 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): 2 Prospective guests and their representatives can be confident that the home will undertake a detailed assessment of individuals’ aspirations and needs, prior to them staying at the home. EVIDENCE: The inspection of 4 guests’ files confirmed that pre admission assessments had been received from placing social workers in respect of guests whose placements were funded by the local authority. The home had also undertaken pre admission visits to potential guests and completed their own assessments, involving getting a more detailed picture of the individual needs and abilities of each referral. The homes’ assessments identified the preferences and needs of each guest in relation to a wide range physical and emotional needs as well as daily routines, family support, resource issues and independence. These assessments gave all the required information needed by the home to produce a comprehensive and person centred package of care, suited to the individual. Upaya Ananda DS0000061223.V261466.R01.S.doc Version 5.0 Page 9 Individual Needs and Choices The intended outcomes for Standards 6 – 10 are: 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. Service users know their assessed and changing needs and personal goals are reflected in their individual Plan. Service users make decisions about their lives with assistance as needed. Service users are consulted on, and participate in, all aspects of life in the home. Service users are supported to take risks as part of an independent lifestyle. Service users know that information about them is handled appropriately, and that their confidences are kept. The Commission considers Standards 6, 7 and 9 the key standards to be inspected at least once during a 12 month period. JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for the following standard(s): 6, 7 & 9 Prospective guests and their representatives can expect the home to provide very detailed planned care, which would be regularly updated, and which would reflect their individual needs and wishes. Furthermore, they can expect to be enabled to make decisions about their life, and be supported to achieve more independence, and to follow their own personal goals. EVIDENCE: Care plans seen by the inspector contained detailed information on the specific needs of individual guests. The plans included sections on the needs and preferences of guests in relation to all aspects of daily routines from first thing in the morning to last thing at night, medical needs, emotional and behavioural support, health surveillance and contact arrangements. Alteration forms were seen at the front of plans, providing a means for recording any updates or changes to care provision arrangements. As a respite service, the home is not the primary carer and as such, does not hold statutory reviews. However, there were review notes where the home had been asked to attend. Each of the guests’ files examined contained an independence criteria form as part of the assessment process. These records promoted the independence of each guest. An example of this was the staffing calculations, whereby it was Upaya Ananda DS0000061223.V261466.R01.S.doc Version 5.0 Page 10 identified how many staff were needed to enable the guest to retain independence and access resources both within the home, and the community. The home had in place specific procedures to promote guests’ ability to selfmedicate where possible. The pre admission assessments and independence criteria forms identified areas where risks may be posed, and risk management strategies to minimise any risks identified. The home had a handbook, containing information on a wide range of resources and support groups available to service users, including advocacy and befriending schemes should these be required. Upaya Ananda DS0000061223.V261466.R01.S.doc Version 5.0 Page 11 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 & 17 Guests, and their representatives, can be confident that the home will enable those using the service, to take part in appropriate activities, remain part of the local community, whilst retaining as much independence as possible. Furthermore, the home can be expected to respect the rights of those staying at the home, and provide a healthy diet, based on the individual preferences of guests. EVIDENCE: The home provides a respite service, and as such, does not take on a lead role in identifying long term educational and employment resources for service users. However, individual care plans included sections relevant to these areas, and the home supported service users to maintain their own interests and activities. An example of good practice was the efforts the home had made to support one service user to continue their routine attendance at Ipswich Town Football matches. Transport arrangements were in place to facilitate both collecting from and taking to, educational and employment establishments used by service users. The inspector saw a number of information leaflets and booklets at the home, including the Suffolk disability information handbook, with information on a Upaya Ananda DS0000061223.V261466.R01.S.doc Version 5.0 Page 12 wide range of resources, including leisure, employment, finances, statutory/voluntary organisations, relationship advice and education. There was also information available regarding a local befriending service, should this be requested. The pre inspection information provided by the home identified a wide range of recreational activities available both within the home, and accessed via trips out. These included, cinema’s pubs, dance clubs, swimming pools, bowling, theatre, youth clubs and trips to the seaside. All outings are made accessible by the use of a fully wheelchair accessible caravelle bus. There was evidence, in the daily log, of guests having visits from members of their family, and summer barbecue’s, to which family members and friends are invited. Visits occasionally also take place to and from the supported living project in the neighbouring bungalow. The independence criteria forms used by the home promoted the independence of service users in all areas practically possible. The home had been designed with its current use in mind, and was laid out to maximise service users access to all parts of the building. Corridors were wide enough to allow wheelchair mobility; all entrances were accessible by ramps. Toilet and bathroom facilities were suitable for service users with long handled taps and grab rails where needed. The manager reported that plans for the building include the provision of bidet toilets, to further enhance the independence off those staying at the home. The home has responded to the requirement made following the last inspection, and no personal items are stored in areas that may be used by other guests. The home’s records included details of each of the meals taken by service users, and confirmed the provision of a varied and nutritious diet. Individual plans included details of preferences and any special dietary needs. Feedback from staff confirmed that meals were mainly cooked on the premises, although take away meals were sometimes obtained for service users who chose this option. Upaya Ananda DS0000061223.V261466.R01.S.doc Version 5.0 Page 13 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 Prospective guests, and their representatives can be confident that the personal care and support provided by the home is delivered according to the wishes of those receiving it, and that the physical and emotional health needs of those staying at the home will be met. EVIDENCE: The examination of care plans and service users files confirmed that the home had elicited the needs and preferences of individual service users regarding the provision of personal care. Staff reported that system the home had of organising staffing after confirming who was staying at the home, allowed the home to respond to the expressed preferences and needs of service users in the provision of named staff, and staff whose gender was suited to the preferences of service users. Guests confirmed that they were happy with the way the home provided their care, and also that the staff on duty were respectful towards them, and polite at all times. The care plans seen included sections on health surveillance where appropriate. This home only provides respite care, therefore does not arrange for individual service users to be registered with a doctor, although GP information is a fundamental part of the assessment process, so no service users were admitted without being registered. Information about service users’ GP was found in service users files. Information was available in the home Upaya Ananda DS0000061223.V261466.R01.S.doc Version 5.0 Page 14 regarding support services for people with disabilities in the area of relationships and health. The home had a strict no smoking policy. Upaya Ananda DS0000061223.V261466.R01.S.doc Version 5.0 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 & 23 Prospective guests and their representatives can be confident that the views of those staying at the home will be listened to and acted upon, and that adults staying at the home will be protected from abuse. Further work needs to be undertaken with regards to child protection procedures and training. EVIDENCE: The home had a clear complaints procedure and information about advocacy services displayed around the home. Guests who spoke to the inspector confirmed verbally that they were confident that their views were taken on board, and that they could and would complain if they were unhappy with any aspect of the care. Both guests stated that they were the ones who made the decisions about where they went and what they did in the home. Adult protection training had been provided to 6 of the 10 care staff, and appropriate policies were in place at the home, including referral forms if needed. The home’s induction folder included information about the home’s policy in relation to vulnerable adults. As the home occasionally cares for people under 18, it is necessary for the staff training, and policies to be expanded, to include child protection information. The manager reported that she would be happy to attend child protection training. Upaya Ananda DS0000061223.V261466.R01.S.doc Version 5.0 Page 16 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, 25, 26, 27, 28 & 30 Guests and their representatives can be confident that the environment, both private and communal, provided at Upaya Ananda is of the highest quality, suitable for it’s stated purpose, and maintained to a high standard of cleanliness and hygiene, with the interests of those using the service in mind. EVIDENCE: The home was situated close to Hadleigh town centre. Access was available by foot, or car if needed. All of the rooms were spacious, and well furnished with modern equipment and domestic style furniture, carpets and curtains. The premises were bright, cheerful, airy and free from any unpleasant odours. Safety certification had been obtained from fire safety, environmental health and building control as part of the home’s registration process, which had been completed as recently as January 2005. Food hygiene notices were displayed in the kitchen area, and records were seen of fridge/freezer temperature monitoring. The home has one bedroom with its own hoist and an adapted ensuite shower room and toilet for wheelchair users. There is one communal bathroom, and separate staff facilities. Staff had their own lockable storage area. Upaya Ananda DS0000061223.V261466.R01.S.doc Version 5.0 Page 17 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): 34 & 35 Prospective guests and their representatives can be confident that the home’s recruitment practices ensure the safety of those using the service, and that the staff team receive appropriate training, to meet the needs of those who use the service. EVIDENCE: The inspector examined 4 staff files. Each of the files contained all of the information required by regulations, to determine the fitness of the worker concerned. Induction records confirmed that this training is provided by a recognised body, and conforms to the social care induction standards published by the national training organisation “skills for care”. Upaya Ananda DS0000061223.V261466.R01.S.doc Version 5.0 Page 18 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): 39 & 42 Prospective guests and their representatives can be confident that the home’s operation is based on the views of those who use the service, and that these views will be sought routinely. They can also be confident that the manager ensures the health and safety of guests and staff. EVIDENCE: The guests who spoke to the inspector both stated that their views were sought over a range of issues, from what to do and eat that night, to the way the home operated. The guests files all contained a quality assurance questionnaire, with positive results. The manager reported that an annual quality meeting between the management team and the proprietor is planned as a cycle of reviewing the homes performance. Advice was given by the inspector that this review should include the views of stakeholders in the service, including representatives of any organisations involved, such as teachers, GP’s family and friends of those who use the service. Upaya Ananda DS0000061223.V261466.R01.S.doc Version 5.0 Page 19 Records were seen of safety risk assessments, fire safety checks, and routine maintenance, related to health & safety. The building is still not yet a year old, so major services on gas and electrical appliances will not be due at this time. Upaya Ananda DS0000061223.V261466.R01.S.doc Version 5.0 Page 20 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 CONCERNS AND COMPLAINTS Standard No 1 2 3 4 5 Score X 4 X X X Standard No 22 23 Score 3 2 ENVIRONMENT INDIVIDUAL NEEDS AND CHOICES Standard No 6 7 8 9 10 Score 3 3 X 3 X Standard No 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 STAFFING Score 4 4 X 4 4 X 3 LIFESTYLES Standard No Score 11 X 12 3 13 3 14 X 15 3 16 3 17 Standard No 31 32 33 34 35 36 Score X X X 3 3 X CONDUCT AND MANAGEMENT OF THE HOME 3 PERSONAL AND HEALTHCARE SUPPORT Standard No 18 19 20 21 Upaya Ananda Score 3 3 3 X Standard No 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 Score X X 3 X X 3 X DS0000061223.V261466.R01.S.doc Version 5.0 Page 21 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 1 Standard 23 23 Regulation 32 32 Requirement Timescale for action 19/01/06 The registered persons must ensure all staff receive training in child protection. The registered persons must 19/01/06 produce a written policy, which is intended to safeguard children accommodated at the home, and sets out the procedure to be followed in the event of any allegation of abuse or neglect RECOMMENDATIONS These recommendations relate to National Minimum Standards and are seen as good practice for the Registered Provider/s to consider carrying out. No. Refer to Standard Good Practice Recommendations Upaya Ananda DS0000061223.V261466.R01.S.doc Version 5.0 Page 22 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 Upaya Ananda DS0000061223.V261466.R01.S.doc Version 5.0 Page 23 - 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!