CARE HOME ADULTS 18-65
Wadeville Hostel 2a and 2b Wadeville Close Upper Belvedere Kent DA17 5ND Lead Inspector
Maria Kinson Unannounced Inspection 27th February 2006 08:30 Wadeville Hostel DS0000037846.V278060.R01.S.doc Version 5.1 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 Wadeville Hostel DS0000037846.V278060.R01.S.doc Version 5.1 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. Wadeville Hostel DS0000037846.V278060.R01.S.doc Version 5.1 Page 3 SERVICE INFORMATION
Name of service Wadeville Hostel Address 2a and 2b Wadeville Close Upper Belvedere Kent DA17 5ND 01622 769100 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) MCCH Society Limited Ms Georgina Waters Care Home 13 Category(ies) of Learning disability (9), Learning disability over registration, with number 65 years of age (4) of places Wadeville Hostel DS0000037846.V278060.R01.S.doc Version 5.1 Page 4 SERVICE INFORMATION
Conditions of registration: Date of last inspection 6th September 2005 Brief Description of the Service: In December 2002 this home varied its registration and changes were made to the configuration of the home. The home is now registered for thirteen service users with a learning disability, four of whom may be over 65 years of age. The registered provision provides 24-hour support with a sleep in arrangement and waking night support. The house is split into two flats, six in flat 2b and seven in flat 2a. Each flat has its own kitchen/dining and lounge area, bedrooms, toilet and bathing facilities. The garden is a shared area for both sets of service users and is also shared with other people in the surrounding supported living accommodation. Daytime opportunities are provided through the day services previously operated by Bexley Council but now managed by MCCH Society Ltd. The Community Learning Disability Team provide specialist health and social input. Wadeville Hostel DS0000037846.V278060.R01.S.doc Version 5.1 Page 5 SUMMARY
This is an overview of what the inspector found during the inspection. This inspection took place on 27th February 2006, between 08:30am and 1.50pm. The inspector visited the home briefly on 22nd February and arranged to return on 27th February to complete the inspection. A partial tour of the home was undertaken and the support records for two service users were assessed. The inspector spoke with four service users and three members of staff. Eight comment cards were sent to relatives and health and social care professionals that were in regular content with the home. Three comment cards were returned to the commission. Because of the delay in receiving the previous report it was agreed that the Registered Person would prepare a combined response to this and the previous inspection. What the service does well:
This home has a stable team of committed staff that work hard to provide good continuity of care and support for service users. Staff retention was good and a number of staff had worked in the home for several years. The participation of service users in the day- to- day running of the home was excellent. Service users were encouraged to assist with household tasks such as gardening, cooking, cleaning and shopping. Both flats were maintained to a satisfactory standard and were clean, comfortable and odour free. Plans were in place to redecorate some parts of the home in 2006. Service users relatives were made welcome when they visited and were encouraged to contribute to support plans and attend meetings. Relatives were satisfied with the overall standard of care and said their family members liked living in the home. The food provided in the home was good and all of the service users spoken with on the day of the inspection said they enjoyed it. Service user involvement in food preparation was good. Staff supported service users to maintain their independence where possible and to learn new skills. Service users were supported to attend local day care
Wadeville Hostel DS0000037846.V278060.R01.S.doc Version 5.1 Page 6 services and colleges and take part in social activities and events in the home and community. The home had not received any complaints but had a procedure to follow if concerns were raised. Staff had a good awareness of adult protection issues and were clear that they should report concerns to senior staff promptly. Prospective service users were able to spend time in the home getting to know staff and the other service users, prior to moving in. Staff assisted service users to access community health care services and provided additional support and care when service users were ill. Feedback from other health care professionals was positive. What has improved since the last inspection? What they could do better:
Although it was evident through discussions with service users, staff and other professionals that service users received a good standard of support the documentation maintained in the home did not always support this. Some service users did not have a support plan and adequate assessment of their needs. Some documentation was not reviewed at regular intervals. Service users had not received a contract or terms and conditions of occupancy. Risk assessments were not obtained for prospective service users and the Registered Person did not confirm in writing whether the home could meet service users needs. The Service User Guide did not include adequate information and the public liability certificate had expired. The commission were not notified about significant events such as serious illness or accidents that required medical attention. Wadeville Hostel DS0000037846.V278060.R01.S.doc Version 5.1 Page 7 The bathing facilities provided in the home did not meet service users needs. The manager advised the inspector that a walk in shower would be installed in flat 2a in 2006. Some health and safety issues were identified. The homes quality assurance programme did not include systems to identify shortfalls such as record keeping. Unannounced visits to the home by the nominated person were infrequent. No internal auditing was undertaken and no attempts were made to obtain written feedback about the service from service users, their representatives and other professionals via satisfaction surveys or questionnaires. Staff training was variable; some staff expressed concerns about access to training and said that sessions were often cancelled. The manager had spent some of her time in recent months in another home. The commission were not informed about this arrangement. 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. Wadeville Hostel DS0000037846.V278060.R01.S.doc Version 5.1 Page 8 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 Wadeville Hostel DS0000037846.V278060.R01.S.doc Version 5.1 Page 9 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, 2, 4 and 5. Some of the arrangements for admitting new service users to the home could compromise their safety and wellbeing. Service users did not have access to sufficient written information to make an informed choice and staff did not receive adequate information about prospective clients needs. EVIDENCE: The Service User Guide did not include information about the terms and conditions of occupancy and a standard form of contract. See requirement 1 and recommendation 1. Since the last inspection one new service user had been admitted to the home. The records indicated that the service user had visited the home with their relatives and had spent time in the home to see if they liked it, before moving in. One meeting had been held prior to the service user moving into the home to discuss the arrangements and answer family members questions. A referral form was sent to the home. This form was only partially completed and included very little information about the service users health, personal and social needs. There was no written evidence that the service users needs had been assessed by staff from the home prior to admission or that staff had confirmed in writing that they could meet the service users needs. The service user did not have a contract so it was not possible to determine what was included in the fee and the period of notice. See requirement 2 and 3.
Wadeville Hostel DS0000037846.V278060.R01.S.doc Version 5.1 Page 10 Wadeville Hostel DS0000037846.V278060.R01.S.doc Version 5.1 Page 11 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, 8 and 9. Support plans did not provide adequate evidence that service users needs were identified or met by staff. Service users played an active role in the running of the home. There was no evidence that risks to service users were identified prior to admission or that assessments were reviewed regularly. EVIDENCE: The documentation for two service users was assessed. One of the recently admitted service users did not have an assessment, care plan or risk assessments. There was no written information about the service users health, personal or social needs and it was therefore not possible to judge whether appropriate support was provided. The second file had an individual plan and risk assessments but these documents were dated 2004. Some gaps were left between entries in the continuing care notes. Discussions with support staff indicated that they had a good understanding of service users needs and evidence of this was observed throughout the day. See requirement 4 and recommendation 2. Service users played an active role in the running of the home. Service users assisted staff with a variety of household chores such as cleaning, shopping,
Wadeville Hostel DS0000037846.V278060.R01.S.doc Version 5.1 Page 12 cooking and preparing food. A number of service users prepared and served hot drinks. Service users were assisted to clean their rooms, undertake their personal laundry and load the dishwasher. One of the service users had made and decorated two Christmas cakes for service users and staff to enjoy over the holiday period. Wadeville Hostel DS0000037846.V278060.R01.S.doc Version 5.1 Page 13 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, 15 and 17. Service users were supported to undertake relevant training and develop new skills. Relatives were satisfied with the care and facilities provided in the home. The food provided in the home met service users nutritional needs and tastes. EVIDENCE: Service users were supported to attend college and local day care services where appropriate. Service users that did not have the capacity to undertake paid work or education were encouraged to attend life skills training sessions such as cooking and money management. Some service users attended day care services every day whilst others that were approaching retirement or were in not in good health spent part or most of their time in the home. Feedback from relatives was good. Relatives that responded to the comment cards sent out by the commission said that they felt welcomed in the home, were kept informed about important matters and were satisfied with the overall standard of care provided. Relatives also said that their family
Wadeville Hostel DS0000037846.V278060.R01.S.doc Version 5.1 Page 14 members were “happy and called it their home” and during periods of ill health “staff worked hard to keep service users happy and help them to get better”. The inspector observed service users and staff preparing and serving lunch in one of the flats. The meal looked appetising and all of the service users that the inspector spoke with said they liked the food provided in the home. Wadeville Hostel DS0000037846.V278060.R01.S.doc Version 5.1 Page 15 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 and 19. Service users health and welfare needs were met. EVIDENCE: Support was provided to meet service users personal hygiene needs. Staff tried to accommodate service users personal preferences regarding times for getting up and going to bed but some guidance was required where attendance at day centres and transport arrangements were in place. Care was taken to ensure that service users were suitably dressed. Service users privacy and dignity was maintained. One health care professional that visited the home regularly said that staff communicated effectively and worked in partnership with their team. Staff maintained up to date records about medical appointments and visits. One service user required additional support during a period of ill health. Additional staff were provided and advice had been obtained from other professionals to make the treatment regime more understandable for the service user. Previous recommendations relating to the management of medicines were not assessed during this visit. See recommendation 3 and 4.
Wadeville Hostel DS0000037846.V278060.R01.S.doc Version 5.1 Page 16 Concerns, Complaints and Protection
The intended outcomes for Standards 22 – 23 are: 22. 23. Service users feel their views are listened to and acted on. Service users are protected from abuse, neglect and self-harm. The Commission considers Standards 22, and 23 the key standards to be inspected at least once during a 12 month period. JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for the following standard(s): 22 and 23. The home has a comprehensive complaints and adult protection procedure in place for responding to complaints or allegations of abuse. EVIDENCE: The home had a comprehensive complaints procedure, which included a timescale for responding to concerns and contact details for the commission. The home had not received any complaints during the past year. The manager of the home advised the inspector that the company’s adult protection procedure had not changed and no referrals had been made to the POVA list. Staff had a good understanding of adult protection matters and said they would report allegations or concerns to senior staff. The commission have not been notified about any complaints or adult protection issues relating to this service. Wadeville Hostel DS0000037846.V278060.R01.S.doc Version 5.1 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, 27 and 30. The home was comfortable and welcoming for service users and their visitors. The bathing facilities provided in the home did not meet some service users needs. EVIDENCE: The home was clean, tidy and odour free. The building was maintained to a satisfactory standard but some of the paintwork in the corridors and residents bedrooms was chipped and worn. Staff said that some of the communal areas, bedrooms and corridors would be redecorated in 2006. It was identified during the previous inspection that some of the carpets in the home were stained and there were cracks on some of the walls. See recommendation 5. Since the last inspection the shower had been repaired. The home has two domestic baths and a shower. Access to the shower was via a deep step. Some of the service users were not able to have a bath because they could not get and out of the bath safely and some were now experiencing difficulty getting in and out of the shower due to mobility issues. The current bathing facilities did not meet all of the service users needs. The manager advised the inspector that some service users had been referred to an Occupational
Wadeville Hostel DS0000037846.V278060.R01.S.doc Version 5.1 Page 18 Therapist for assessment and advice and the budget for 2006 included installing a walk in shower. See requirement 5. Some service users with restricted mobility indicated they would like to have a bath. Since the last inspection new furniture, carpets and kitchen equipment had been purchased. A local environmental health officer inspected the kitchen in December 2005. The report from this visit indicated that standard of hygiene maintained in the kitchen was satisfactory. Wadeville Hostel DS0000037846.V278060.R01.S.doc Version 5.1 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): 33. This home has a stable and committed team of staff that had established positive relationships with service users. EVIDENCE: The arrangements for staffing the home had not changed but some of the permanent staff had increased their hours. Retention of staff was good. This provides excellent continuity of support for service users. The use of agency staff had increased in recent months, as one of the service users required more frequent one to one support due to declining health needs. Permanent and bank staff felt supported and said they liked working in the home. Staff had established positive working relationships with service users and their relatives. The previous requirement to ensure that adequate staff records were maintained in the home was not assessed during this visit. Discussions are taking place with the registered provider about this issue. See requirement 6. Discussions with staff indicated that access to training was variable and sessions were often cancelled. One bank staff member had not received any training during the past year. See recommendation 6.
Wadeville Hostel DS0000037846.V278060.R01.S.doc Version 5.1 Page 20 Wadeville Hostel DS0000037846.V278060.R01.S.doc Version 5.1 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, 38, 39, 41 and 42. Poor record keeping practices had not been addressed. The reduction in management hours and lack of monitoring by the nominated person may have contributed to this. The manager provided good support for staff and service users. Some work was in progress to monitor the quality of care provided in the home but this did not involve obtaining feedback from service users or their representatives. Some of the records required by regulation could not be located or were out of date. Some health and safety issues were identified. These concerns must be addressed promptly to reduce the risk of injury to service users. EVIDENCE: The manager had spent part of her time in recent months working in another home. During this period the manager completed a specific piece of work and provided advice for staff from both homes. A new manager had now been appointed for the other service. See recommendation 7.
Wadeville Hostel DS0000037846.V278060.R01.S.doc Version 5.1 Page 22 The previous regulatory authority had assessed the manager to be a suitably experienced person to manage a care home. Information about the managers current qualifications were not available at the time of this inspection but have been requested. Staff said that the manager was approachable and helpful. The commission had not received notification under regulation 37 about significant issues that occurred in the home. Records maintained in the home indicated that some of the service users had been admitted to hospital or had received hospital treatment since the last inspection. The public liability certificate displayed in the home expired in November 2005. See requirement 7. Some quality assurance systems were in place such as completion of weekly and monthly returns about significant issues and events that had occurred in the home. Boots undertook an annual audit of medication and controlled drugs were checked each day. The unannounced visits to the home that were required under regulation 26 had not been carried out for several months. The last report received by the commission was in June 2005. There was no evidence that service user surveys were used to obtain feedback about the service. See requirement 8 and 9. The Commission had not received a risk assessment, or water chlorination certificate. See requirement 10. Some windows on upper floor of the home were fully open and were not restricted. Although staff expressed concerns about getting some service users in and out of the shower/bath there were no moving and handling assessments on the files. See requirement 11 and 12. Wadeville Hostel DS0000037846.V278060.R01.S.doc Version 5.1 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 2 2 2 3 X 4 3 5 2 INDIVIDUAL NEEDS AND CHOICES Standard No 6 7 8 9 10 Score CONCERNS AND COMPLAINTS Standard No Score 22 3 23 3 ENVIRONMENT Standard No Score 24 3 25 X 26 X 27 2 28 X 29 X 30 3 STAFFING Standard No Score 31 X 32 X 33 3 34 X 35 X 36 X CONDUCT AND MANAGEMENT OF THE HOME Standard No 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 Score 2 X 4 2 X LIFESTYLES Standard No Score 11 X 12 3 13 X 14 X 15 3 16 X 17 3 PERSONAL AND HEALTHCARE SUPPORT Standard No 18 19 20 21 Score 3 3 X X 2 3 2 X 2 2 X Wadeville Hostel DS0000037846.V278060.R01.S.doc Version 5.1 Page 24 Are there any outstanding requirements from the last inspection? Yes 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 YA1 Regulation 5 Requirement Timescale for action 01/04/06 2. YA5 5 The Registered Person must ensure that the Service Users Guide includes the following information-: the terms and conditions of occupancy including the amount and method of payment of fees and a standard form of contract. A copy of the revised Service Users Guide must be forwarded to the Commission within 28 days of any changes being made. This requirement was carried forward from a previous inspection. The requirement was not assessed during this visit, as the timescale had not expired. (The previous timescales of 01/02/05 and 01/06/05 were not met) The Registered Person must 01/04/06 ensure that service users are supplied with a written contract. This requirement was carried forward from a previous inspection. The requirement was not assessed during this visit, as the timescale had not expired. (The previous timescales of 01/01/05 and
DS0000037846.V278060.R01.S.doc Version 5.1 Wadeville Hostel Page 25 01/06/05 were not met) 3. YA2 14 The Registered Person must not provide accommodation to a service user at the care home unless: • The needs of the service user have been fully assessed • The Registered Person has confirmed in writing to the service user, that with regard to the assessment the care home is suitable for meeting his/her needs. The Registered Person must ensure that every service user has a support plan, which is reviewed and updated regularly. The Registered Person must notify the commission in writing by 21.04.06 about the timescale for providing appropriate bathing facilities in the home. The Registered Person must ensure that all records relating to staff employment are kept in the home. This requirement was carried forward from a previous inspection. The Registered Person must ensure that: • The commission are notified of significant events listed under regulation 37 • An up to date public liability certificate is displayed The Registered Person must ensure that visits to comply with regulation 26 are undertaken regularly. A copy of the report compiled following these visits must be supplied to the commission and Registered Manager.
DS0000037846.V278060.R01.S.doc 21/04/06 4. YA6 15 21/04/06 5. YA27 23 21/04/06 6. YA17 34 01/06/05 7. YA41 17 21/04/06 8. YA41 26 21/04/06 Wadeville Hostel Version 5.1 Page 26 9. YA39 24 10. YA42 13 11. YA42 13 12. YA42 13 The Registered Person must establish a system for reviewing and improving the quality of care provided in the home. This must include consultation with service users and their representatives. The Registered Person must ensure that a copy of the water chlorination certificate or risk assessment is forwarded to the commission. This requirement was carried forward from a previous inspection. The requirement was not assessed during this visit, as the timescale had not expired. The previous timescales of 15/12/04 and 01/06/05 were not met. The Registered Person must assess the risk of injury to staff from moving and handling individual service users. The Registered Person must reduce the risk of injury as far as practicable. This requirement was carried forward from a previous inspection. The requirement was not assessed during this visit, as the timescale had not expired. The Registered Person must ensure that all windows that are two metres above ground level are restricted. 19/05/06 01/04/06 01/04/06 21/04/06 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 Person should ensure that the Service
DS0000037846.V278060.R01.S.doc Version 5.1 Page 27 Wadeville Hostel 2. 3. YA9 YA20 4. 5. 6. 7. YA20 YA24 YA35 YA37 Users Guide includes the following information -: the relevant qualifications and experience of the Registered Provider, Manager and staff, the number of places provided and the people for whom the service is intended, service users views of the home and information about how the home meets the following standards 24.2, 24.9, 27.2, 27.4 and 28.2. The Registered Person should ensure that risk is assessed prior to admission, recorded in the care plan and is reviewed at regular intervals. The Registered Person should ensure that the home develops local policies and procedures for the receipt, storage, handling, administration, disposal, self administration, homely remedies and supply of medicines to service users on leave· The temperature in the medicine cupboard in the kitchen should be monitored and eye drops should be marked with the date of opening· The Registered Person should provide appropriate storage for controlled drugs. The Registered Person should replace the carpet in the lounge in flat 2b and repair/fill the cracks on the walls. The Registered Person should ensure that staff receive induction training to TOPSS standards and five paid training days each year. The Registered Manager should not be responsible for more than one registered establishment. Wadeville Hostel DS0000037846.V278060.R01.S.doc Version 5.1 Page 28 Commission for Social Care Inspection Sidcup Local Office River House 1 Maidstone Road Sidcup DA14 5RH 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 Wadeville Hostel DS0000037846.V278060.R01.S.doc Version 5.1 Page 29 - 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!
