Inspection on 15/09/05 for White Hill House

This inspection was carried out on 15th September 2005.

CSCI has not published a star rating for this report, though using similar criteria we estimate that the report is Adequate. 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 found there to be outstanding requirements from the previous inspection report but made no statutory requirements on the home.

Other inspections for this house

White Hill House 10/04/08

White Hill House 26/04/07

White Hill House 24/07/06

White Hill House 31/01/06

White Hill House 22/03/05

White Hill House 28/10/04

White Hill House 23/03/04

White Hill House 07/01/04

Similar services:

St Vincents

The Cotswold Home

Newbeech House

Winton House

Rush Court

Hillyfield Rest Home

The Maypole Nursing Centre

The Briars

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

CARE HOMES FOR OLDER PEOPLE White Hill House 128 White Hill Chesham Bucks HP5 1AR Lead Inspector Mike Murphy Announced 15th September 2005 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 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. White Hill House Version 1.10 Page 3 SERVICE INFORMATION Name of service White Hill House Address 128 White Hill, Chesham, Bucks, HP5 1AR Telephone number Fax number Email address Name of registered provider(s)/company (if applicable) Name of registered manager (if applicable) Type of registration No. of places registered (if applicable) 01494 782992 Mrs Anita Larkin Mr Julian Larkin Mrs Anita Larkin Care Home 8 Category(ies) of Dementia (1), Old age, not falling within any registration, with number other category (8) of places White Hill House Version 1.10 Page 4 SERVICE INFORMATION Conditions of registration: Date of last inspection 22nd March 2005 Brief Description of the Service: White Hill House is a small, privately owned and family run care home that is registered to provide care, support and accommodation for up to eight service users, one of whom may have dementia care needs.One of the registered proprietors, Mrs Anita Larkin, is also the registered manager of the home. White Hill House is situated on the periphery of the market town of Chesham, is a detached property set slightly back from the main road. At the front of the building there are car-parking facilities for approximately six vehicles and there are enclosed gardens to the rear of the home.With the exception if one bedroom, service users benefit from single room accommodation. The shared room was being used as a single room at the time of this announced inspection.The town of Chesham is a short distance from the home. White Hill House Version 1.10 Page 5 SUMMARY This is an overview of what the inspector found during the inspection. This inspection was conducted in one day by one inspector. The methodology included discussion with residents, the manager, staff and visitors, observation of practice, sharing lunch with residents, consideration of information supplied by the home and of comment cards returned by residents, relatives and health professionals. It finds that this relatively small home meets most of the minimum standards for care homes for older people and provides a service which is valued by residents, relatives and professionals in contact with the home. However, the inspection finds uneven performance in relation to some of the standards. The home’s strengths are in the recognition of individual needs, the quality of care provided, relations with relatives, and in the confidence expressed in it by health professionals. The home’s weaknesses are in some of its systems and procedures where a more rigorous approach is required. This particularly applies to staff recruitment, where, no matter what their status, all staff must have POVA first clearance if employed in advance of an enhanced CRB certificate. The home must also ensure that it can provide evidence of conformance to relevant health & safety regulations. Residents appeared settled and well supported and expressed satisfaction with the care they received. These views were supported by the views of relatives. The registered manager lives in the home and is able to supervise all aspects of activity. The staff appeared satisfied in their work. The inspector would like to thank the residents, the manager and staff for their time and hospitality during the inspection and to express thanks to all of those who took time to complete and return comment cards. What the service does well: The home provides care in a small, homely and family style environment. The proprietors live in the home and much of the accommodation is shared with the family. Residents report the food to be of a good standard. It is homemade and freshly cooked. The home maintains good relations with resident’s families. Relative respondents expressed confidence in the home and found the manager and staff welcoming and approachable. Most reported being kept informed of the progress of their relative. White Hill House Version 1.10 Page 6 The home is a very pleasant building with good mature gardens which are used for social events in good weather. What has improved since the last inspection? What they could do better: Please contact the provider for advice of actions taken in response to this inspection. The full report of this inspection is available from enquiries@csci.gsi.gov.uk or White Hill House Version 1.10 Page 7 by contacting your local CSCI office. White Hill House Version 1.10 Page 8 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 Standards Statutory Requirements Identified During the Inspection White Hill House Version 1.10 Page 9 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 standard(s) 2 & 3 The ‘Resident Contract of Agreement’ outlines the responsibilities of both parties and make it clear to residents and their families the services which White Hill House provides and those for an additional fee is payable. However, the wording of one paragraph with regard to dementia appears at variance with the home’s registration status and it is important that the home’s position on this is clarified. The needs of prospective residents are assessed under a process which aims to ensure that the home can meet the prospective residents needs. Trial visits provide both the prospective resident and the home with an opportunity to decide if residence on a more permanent basis would be right. EVIDENCE: Both pages of the home’s certificate of registration were not on display. A copy of the ‘Resident Contract of Agreement’ was reviewed. This is a four page document. The contract is written in a straightforward style. The first White Hill House Version 1.10 Page 10 page is an introduction. The second and third pages outline the agreement in detail. The fourth page has space for the dates of the trial period and for the signatures of the resident, that of a relative or advisor and that of a representative of the home. The document does not include identification (e.g. room no or location) or other details of the room to be occupied. It does list the services provided and services for which additional fees are required. The rights and obligations of the respective parties are implied rather than expressed in detail. It does not have space for the fees payable or by whom. The contract makes it clear that the home is a care home and is unable to provide nursing care and that it is not equipped to care for residents with serious impairment of mobility or other special needs and who require care by staff who have received ‘special training’. There is however a potential conflict between the home’s registration which includes one place for dementia and the wording of paragraph 19 of the contract which includes the wording ‘….if a resident is suffering from dementia or is infringing the privacy or safety of others, or is a risk to him/herself, we reserve the right to terminate the contract.’. Enquiries to the home are made by the prospective resident or their family. They are invited to visit the home, view the facilities and discuss their needs with the registered manager. If the enquiry progresses the prospective service user agrees to a fuller assessment of needs which may involve obtaining information from other health professionals (most often the person’s general practitioner). The home has developed its own assessment and care planning documentation. The assessment process is structured using a set of forms in which the following details are recorded: personal details (including names of next of kin, GP and social worker, a personal profile (covering personal relationships, personality & personal circumstances), religious, cultural needs, details of falls, rating scale assessments of physical and mental health and of behaviour and personal care, a brief nutrition screen form, and summary social and medical needs. This information informs the plan of care which is drawn up for the resident. The home makes it clear to prospective residents that it cannot provide nursing care or meet the needs of people with serious mobility impairments. Healthcare services are accessed through the general practitioner or direct contract. Staff are trained in meeting basic care needs. The first four weeks of residence is considered a trial stay and this is clearly noted in the contract. White Hill House Version 1.10 Page 11 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 standard(s) 7,8,9 &10 Residents needs are assessed and are included in a plan of care which is regularly reviewed. The home liases with NHS and other healthcare services as required. This ensures that identified care needs are met and that progress is monitored. Medication is prescribed by the resident’s general practitioner, dispensed by a local pharmacy and administered in accordance with the home’s policy and procedure. However, the home does not receive periodic visits by a pharmacist which would support good practice in the storage, control and administration of medicines. EVIDENCE: A care plan is in place for each resident. Care plans were well organised and comprehensive. Plans were reviewed monthly and amended in line with the changing needs of residents. All residents are registered with a GP. District nurses visit individual residents as required and the home reports a high level of satisfaction with the service. An optician visits the home on request. A similar arrangement exists with a dentist. The chiropodist visits every six weeks. Other healthcare service are accessed through the GP. The home’s own White Hill House Version 1.10 Page 12 assessment documents aim to collect information on falls and nutrition. There were no residents with pressure sores at the time of this inspection. The control, storage and administration of medicines is governed by the ‘Medication Policy at White Hill House’. This was revised in September 2005. The policy is fairly comprehensive and covers the basics of administration, retention of medicines after the death of a resident, Controlled Drugs (although the reference in this section to interaction with alcohol would apply to many other categories of drug and while very important in the policy is probably inappropriately located solely in this section), action in the event of ‘accidental overdose’, self-administration, ‘homely medication’, medicines while on leave, returning medicine to the pharmacy and general notes. Two staff were due to attend a training course run by Boots Chemists. Medication is prescribed by the resident’s GP. Medicines are dispensed by a local pharmacy (FMY chemists in Chesham) and usually supplied on NOMAD trays. Medicines are stored in locked metal cabinets. The administration of medicines is recorded in a ‘MARS’ (medicines administration record sheet) chart. The home does not receive periodic visits by its pharmacist which would support it in maintaining good practice in respect of its policy and procedure. The privacy and dignity of residents is maintained through the provision of personal care in bedrooms and bathrooms. Professional consultations take place in the resident’s bedroom or dining room (when empty). Staff knock on bedroom doors before entering. A telephone handset is available to allow residents to make private calls. The shared room on the ground floor is shared only by a married couple if required. At the time of this inspection it was occupied by one resident. A relative outlined experience with the home. The person described it as a homely place – “A home from home” – with the advantage of having a small number of places. Standards of care were described as good and the staff as welcoming and friendly. The person felt that it had been the right decision to agree to a place there and had confidence in the home. Many of the residents are frail but they seemed settled and well cared for. One resident was particularly complimentary about the quality of care and felt well supported by staff. Staff practice in relation to dying and death is guided by the home’s policy and procedure. One resident had died in the home over the past year. Staff are aware of the need to treat the person who is dying with care and sensitivity, to maintain the person’s privacy, to liase with the family, and to liase with relevant health services as required. White Hill House Version 1.10 Page 13 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 standard(s) 13, 14 & 15 Residents routines and choices are respected which ensures that residents can pursue their own interests while participating in occasional communal or other recreational activity if desired. Visitors are welcome at any time which means that residents maintain contact with family and friends. The home provides a varied range of meals for residents and appears to meet nutritional needs and personal preferences. EVIDENCE: Residents may exercise choice in relation to social activities. Interests are recorded in care plans. Activities pursued in varying degrees by residents include quoits, board games (including chess and draughts), tv and video. Some residents attended a garden party at a local church and have had coffee with residents in another home (part of the same business). A demonstration of dogs for disabled people has been held in the grounds of the other home and some residents attended this too. One resident maintains contact with a knitting club. Residents have attended music events at the local park. Many residents seem content reading or sitting in the garden on occasions. Visitors are welcome at any time apart from mealtimes – there is a reference to this in paragraph 3 of the contract (‘The Agreement’). Residents may see White Hill House Version 1.10 Page 14 visitors in private if they wish. The home supports residents wishing to maintain contact with local community organisations. The proprietor said that the home does not get involved in managing the financial affairs of residents. It does have “an understanding” with families that small items of clothing (such as nightdresses) may be bought on behalf of residents and the cost reclaimed from the family (receipts are provided). The home would recommend the use of Aylesbury Vale Advocates should a resident require an advocate. Breakfast is served at 07.30 as requested by the resident. Lunch, which is the main meal of the day, is a two course meal served in the dining room at 1.00 pm. Supper is served at 6.00 pm. Morning coffee is served at 10.30 am, afternoon tea is served at 3.30 pm and hot drinks are served at 8.00 pm. Menus were supplied for the inspection. Lunch was taken with residents who expressed satisfaction with the meal. Residents are provided with assistance as required. White Hill House Version 1.10 Page 15 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 standard(s) 16, 17 & 18 The home’s complaints procedures ensure that residents or others making complaints will have the complaint investigated by the registered manager (who is also the proprietor). While the procedure includes contact details for the local CSCI office it does not state that a resident may refer a complaint to CSCI at any stage. Residents are registered on the electoral register and are thus assured of being given the opportunity to vote in elections if they wish. The home’s procedures and staff training on the protection of vulnerable adults (POVA) have recently been updated which mean that staff receive training in the subject and are informed of reporting arrangements and that residents are protected from abuse. However, policy and practice r requires further amendment in order to ensure full compliance with current statutory arrangements in Buckinghamshire. EVIDENCE: The home’s complaints procedure was reviewed in August 2005. The procedure states that all complaints – oral or written – will be investigated and that the home will endeavour to inform the complainant of the outcome within 28 days. The procedure includes reference to advocacy. It also includes contact details for the other home in the business in case the proprietor is not available to deal with a complaint. It includes contact details of CSCI although it does not state that a complainant may refer a complaint to the CSCI at any stage (standard 16.4) should they wish. White Hill House Version 1.10 Page 16 The complaints procedure includes a reference to the home’s procedure on abuse and it would be advisable to amend and remove most of this because it is not consistent with current joint agency arrangements. Residents are registered to vote. Those wishing to vote would be offered a lift to the voting station at a nearby high school. Residents would also have the right to a postal or proxy vote although none chose to exercise this at the most recent general election. The home does not have a separate policy on abuse and adult protection. The procedure is outlined in the complaints procedure and is out of line with current joint statutory agency arrangements. The procedure outlines an investigatory process which is confined to the home. It does not include reference to other organisations in particular to social services, the police, CSCI or health authorities. It says that staff considered unsuitable to work with vulnerable adults must be referred to CSCI so they can be considered for the Protection of Vulnerable Adults Register (POVA register). This is incorrect. While CSCI needs to be informed of such action under Regulation 37 reporting arrangements the referral to POVA should be made by the employer as outlined in POVA guidance. The home’s recruitment procedures include the need for enhanced CRB certificate or POVA first. Staff were aware of protection of vulnerable adult issues. White Hill House Version 1.10 Page 17 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 standard(s) Standards in this section were not assessed on this inspection EVIDENCE: White Hill House Version 1.10 Page 18 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 considers Standards 27, 29, and 30 the key standards to be inspected at least once during a 12 month period. JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for standard(s) 27, 28, 29 & 30 Staffing levels ensure that there are sufficient staff on duty to meet the needs of residents given current levels of dependency. Policy in relation to staff recruitment processes are generally good but weaknesses identified on this inspection in relation to ‘POVA first’ and enhanced CRB checks potentially places residents at risk. The home provides a programme of staff training which aims to ensure that staff have the necessary skills to meet the needs of residents. EVIDENCE: The home has an establishment of six staff. The proprietor (who is also the registered manager) lives on the premises. Staffing levels vary across the day according to the level of planned activity. One member of staff is on duty for the first half hour of the day. Two are on duty from 08.00 – 09.00. Four staff are on duty at the peak level of activity just after breakfast. An average of two are then maintained from late morning until residents begin to go to their bedrooms at 20.00 hours. One ‘sleep-in’ staff member is on duty at night. All staff have mixed duties covering care, domestic duties and preparing (in varying degrees) and serving meals. At the time of this inspection the home had a vacancy for one part-time member of staff. The proprietor holds NVQ 4 in business studies. One of the care staff has an NVQ3 in care. One of the staff has been a qualified nurse in her own country for over 22 years (although not employed as a nurse in the home) and was pursuing further studies in the UK. One of the care staff has an NVQ2 in care. White Hill House Version 1.10 Page 19 Applicants for posts are required to complete an application form and provide two references. The home had not received enhanced CRB certificates for two care staff. The home has provided staff with a copy of the GSCC Codes of Practice. Staff are provided with a statement of terms and conditions. The home does not employ volunteers. The home runs a programme of staff training with the other home in the business (Culwood House). Training in 2005 has included in-house video based training on adult protection, updates on moving and handling and updates on fire safety. The registered manager was developing an in-house programme of health & safety and infection control training based on the Croner (a consultancy organisation) health & safety training manual. Training was booked for medicines administration and infection control. White Hill House Version 1.10 Page 20 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 33, 35 and 38 the key standards to be inspected at least once during a 12 month period. JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for standard(s) 33, 35 & 38 The management approach of the home supports a caring ethos responsive to the needs of residents. Although the home does not have a formal quality assurance system or development plan it does seek feedback informally. It maintain good standards of cleanliness and an ongoing programme of redecoration which means that care is provided in a well maintained environment. The homes does not manage residents finances, therefore residents no longer able or wishing to manage their own affairs are required to make arrangements with their families or with a professional advisor. Staff training and maintenance systems aim to ensure that the home provides a safe environment for residents, staff and visitors. However, documentary evidence of full compliance with some elements of health & safety was not available for inspection and may mean that some areas of risk remain. White Hill House Version 1.10 Page 21 EVIDENCE: The home does not have a formal programme of quality assurance. As a small private home which is also the home of the proprietor and registered manager it maintains informal monitoring of the quality of the environment and health & safety issues and deals with matters as they arise. The home is well maintained and provides a pleasant home for residents. The views of residents and families are noted informally in day to day encounters. Nine comment cards were received from a range of respondents in connection with this inspection. All expressed satisfaction with the service provided. Residents liked living there and felt well cared for. The majority of other respondents were satisfied with the overall care provided. One respondent expressed reservations with regard to information and to the number of staff on duty at any time. Comments included: ‘A very helpful and friendly team’; ‘My (title of relative) has always been well looked after and I had the utmost confidence in the staff’; ‘Always has a cosy, pleasant, homely atmosphere. Staff always appear friendly and caring…’; ‘Depending who is on duty, the care is good/ some things could be better - I normally have to ask first before any information is given’;’ Very pleased with the care’. The home does not manage monies on behalf of residents. One to one personal supervision of staff was not in place at the time of this inspection. Staff meet every day in this small home and it is felt that a more formal meeting is not required. A system of annual appraisal is not in place. The home has a brief health & safety policy which includes reference to the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974, it outlines the duties of employees and employers and employees, and provides brief guidelines on moving & handling, electricity, kitchen safety, laundry & cleaning safety and general safety. With regard to safe working practice the home provides in-house training on health & safety, moving & handling, fire safety and infection control. Established staff have acquired training on food hygiene and the proprietor said that more staff are due for training before December 31 2005. The home does not have a HSE accident book. There is a training programme for staff in fire safety (using ‘Mulberry House’ materials). A fire risk assessment has been carried out. Fire points are checked weekly. The home was inspected by the fire authority about eighteen months before this inspection and there are no outstanding fire safety issues. A specialist contractor checks the fire system and emergency lighting. The home was rewired in the 1980’s but an up to date certificate was not available at this inspection. Records of up to date PAT checks were not available. White Hill House Version 1.10 Page 22 Most staff have received training in food safety. The temperature of meat or poultry is checked before serving but it is required that this be extended to all hot food and records retained. Water temperatures are checked daily. The home has relevant COSHH data sheets but does not have either a locked cupboard or locked room for storage of potentially dangerous chemicals (mainly domestic cleaning agents). The proprietor recalls the hot water being checked for Legionella in April 2005 but a certificate was not available for inspection. All radiators are covered. Window restrictors are in place. Some bedroom doors have external coach locks which ought to be removed. The home appears secure and in addition the proprietor’s dogs are very alert to visitors. White Hill House Version 1.10 Page 23 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. Where there is no score against a standard it has not been looked at during this inspection. 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 ENVIRONMENT Standard No 1 2 3 4 5 6 Score Standard No 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Score x 2 3 3 3 N/A HEALTH AND PERSONAL CARE Standard No Score 7 3 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 x x x x x x x x STAFFING Standard No Score 27 3 28 2 29 1 30 2 MANAGEMENT AND ADMINISTRATION Standard No 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 Score Standard No 16 17 18 Score 2 3 2 x x 2 x x 2 x 2 White Hill House Version 1.10 Page 24 Yes Are there any outstanding requirements from the last inspection? 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. 2. Standard 29.3 36 Regulation 19 18.2 Requirement That CRB checks are in place for all staff The system for formal staff supervision should be instigated to ensure that each member of staff receives supervision at least six times a year. The registered manager is required to ensure that both pages of the certificate of registration are clearly displayed in the home The registered manager must ensure that staff engaged in the handling of food have up to date training in food safety The registered manager must ensure that substances which are potentially dangerous are stored in a locked cupboard in compliance with COSHH regulations The registered manager must ensure that a valid certificate of compliance with relevant regulations is held for the electrical wiring The registered manager must ensure that a valid certificate of compliance with relevant regulations is held for protable Version 1.10 Timescale for action November 30 2005 December 31 2005 3. Sec. 28 (1) CSA 2000 38 13 (4) November 30 2005 4. December 31 2005 December 31 2005 5. 38 13 (4) 6. 38 13 (4) November 30 2005 7. 38 13 (4) November 30 2005 White Hill House Page 25 appliance testing 8. 18 13 (6) The registered manager must ensure that the homes policies and procedures for the protection of vulnerable adults take account of, and conform to Buckinghamshire joint agency arrangements The registered manager must ensure that the temperature of hot food is tested and records retained December 31 2005 9 38 13 (4) November 30 2005 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. 2. 3. Refer to Standard 24 38 9 Good Practice Recommendations It is recommended that the coach locks which are fitted to residents’ bedroom doors are removed. It is recommended that the home record accidents using the Health & Safety Executive (HSE) forms It is recommended that the home arrange periodic visits by a pharmacist in support of good practice in the storage, control and administration of medicines White Hill House Version 1.10 Page 26 Commission for Social Care Inspection Cambridge House, Smeaton Close 8 Bell Business Park, Aylesbury Buckinghamshire HP19 8JR 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 White Hill House Version 1.10 Page 27 - Please note that this information is included on www.bestcarehome.co.uk under license from the regulator. Re-publishing this information is in breach of the terms of use of that website. Discrete codes and changes have been inserted throughout the textual data shown on the site that will provide incontrovertable proof of copying in the event this information is re-published on other websites. The policy of www.bestcarehome.co.uk is to use all legal avenues to pursue such offenders, including recovery of costs. You have been warned!