CARE HOMES FOR OLDER PEOPLE
White House Residential Home (The) The White House 29 Beverley Road Driffield East Yorkshire YO25 6RZ Lead Inspector
David Blackburn Key Unannounced Inspection 09:00 1st November 2006 X10015.doc Version 1.40 Page 1 The Commission for Social Care Inspection aims to: • • • • Put the people who use social care first Improve services and stamp out bad practice Be an expert voice on social care Practise what we preach in our own organisation Reader Information
Document Purpose Author Audience Further copies from Copyright Inspection Report CSCI General Public 0870 240 7535 (telephone order line) This report is copyright Commission for Social Care Inspection (CSCI) and may only be used in its entirety. Extracts may not be used or reproduced without the express permission of CSCI www.csci.org.uk Internet address White House Residential Home (The) DS0000067033.V315293.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 2 This is a report of an inspection to assess whether services are meeting the needs of people who use them. The legal basis for conducting inspections is the Care Standards Act 2000 and the relevant National Minimum Standards for this establishment are those for Care Homes for Older People. They can be found at www.dh.gov.uk or obtained from The Stationery Office (TSO) PO Box 29, St Crispins, Duke Street, Norwich, NR3 1GN. Tel: 0870 600 5522. Online ordering: www.tso.co.uk/bookshop This report is a public document. Extracts may not be used or reproduced without the prior permission of the Commission for Social Care Inspection. White House Residential Home (The) DS0000067033.V315293.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 3 SERVICE INFORMATION
Name of service White House Residential Home (The) Address The White House 29 Beverley Road Driffield East Yorkshire YO25 6RZ 01377 257560 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) Accomodating Care (Driffield) Limited Mrs Rachel Helena Merrills Care Home 20 Category(ies) of Dementia (20), Old age, not falling within any registration, with number other category (20) of places White House Residential Home (The) DS0000067033.V315293.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 4 SERVICE INFORMATION
Conditions of registration: Date of last inspection 29th March 2006 Brief Description of the Service: The White House is an adapted building with a purpose-built extension originally opened as a care home in 1986. It is situated in its own well maintained grounds. The rear entrance doors give level access to the gardens provided with outdoor seating. There is a passenger lift to all floors. Public transport to the town centre passes the door. The original building is on three levels. Bedrooms and facilities are on the lower two floors and communal areas and services on the ground floor. The top floor is for private use only. A number of bedrooms have en-suite facilities. Sufficient communal facilities are available. Service users are admitted on the basis of their need for personal care by reason of age, fraility, loneliness or social isolation. Staff offer personal care, a catering service, an in-house laundry and a domestic and cleaning service. Nursing care is provided on a short-term basis by the district nursing service. Staff cover is maintained throughout any 24 hour period. There is a range of in-house recreational activities and external activities in the gardens. Each service user is registered with a general medical practitioner who addresses their primary health care needs and can access the more specialised health services as required. A Statement of Purpose and Service User Guide are available in the home. The fee level advised at the time of inspection was from £289 to £360 per week depending on assessed needs. White House Residential Home (The) DS0000067033.V315293.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 5 SUMMARY
This is an overview of what the inspector found during the inspection. The inspection upon which this report is based comprised a review of the evidence held by the Commission including written information given by the registered provider. Service users, relatives, general medical practitioners and care managers had been contacted for their written views. The comments and observations made are included within the relevant sections of this report. An unannounced site visit was carried out, by one inspector, over one day, with a total time at the home of approximately 7 hours. During this visit a number of bedrooms, communal areas and services, for example the laundry facilities, were inspected. An examination was made of some service users’ care records, the home’s policies and procedures and other documents, for example staff records. Conversations were held with a number of service users, relatives and visiting health care professionals, all in confidence. Discussions were also undertaken with the registered manager and a number of staff including care assistants and the cook. The home was recently purchased by a new provider. Registration was granted by the Commission in April of this year. What the service does well:
Service users were happy and well cared for. A number in discussion were complimentary about the standard of care and services on offer in the home. One said “I’m very happy here. It’s a nice place.” A relative said “I am very happy with the care my mother receives at the home.” Another commented “I’m very happy with the care they give. I have no complaints.” One written response noted that the home is “small, personal and a happy place.” The revised Statement of Purpose and Service User Guide detailed the care, services and facilities provided in the home enabling an informed decision to be made about admission. Good assessment procedures gave service users confidence their general needs, choices and preferences would be recorded and understood prior to admission. A good care planning system was in place. It was subject to continued revision to ensure it adequately provided staff with the information needed to satisfactorily meet service users’ personal needs. White House Residential Home (The) DS0000067033.V315293.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 6 Service users’ health needs, including medication, were well met with good evidence seen of multi-disciplinary working. Health related professionals made positive comments about the service in the home reflecting that “any calls made to them were necessary”, that “staff were proactive” and that “staff acted appropriately on the advice and guidance given.” None of those spoken with or who responded by comment card expressed any concerns about the care of their patients. Personal support was offered in a manner that protected service users’ privacy and dignity. Service users said all care was given behind closed doors and assistance was offered in a manner that suited their needs. There were opportunities for social activities and interaction in the home enhancing the life experiences of service users. There was a stream of visitors to the home on the day of the site visit giving service users the opportunity for further social interaction. The meals in the home were generally good offering service users choice and variety, and catering for special dietary needs. A number of positive comments were received from service users and visitors about the good standards achieved by the catering staff, for example “The food’s very nice. I’ve no grumbles”, “They always seem to be able to cook it the way I like it” and “Food is good. I like everything they give me.” However other comments made were less favourable for example “I think the catering service has deteriorated”, The food isn’t always to my liking” and “The meals are not at all balanced.” The registered manager was to meet with the cooks the following week to discuss meal provision and the catering service in general. Service users had access to a robust and effective complaints procedure in which they could have confidence, together with procedures designed to protect them from harm. None of the service users or relatives spoken with expressed any serious concerns. All were confident that any worries they might have would be addressed and resolved by the manager or registered provider. Service users were provided with a comfortable and pleasant home in which to live. Service users and visitors commented that the home was always clean and tidy and never had unpleasant smells. A service user said “It’s always nice and clean.” Visitors were generally complimentary towards the manager and her staff for the overall maintenance, cleanliness and lack of odours in the home. Service users were cared for by a competent and well-motivated staff team. Comments from service users and visitors paid a number of compliments to the manager and staff for the way in which care was given. A service user said “The staff are nice and helpful.” Another remarked “Staff are lovely. Nothing is too much.” One service user said “ Staff work very hard and are often busy but they always find time for me.” White House Residential Home (The) DS0000067033.V315293.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 7 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 report of this inspection is available from enquiries@csci.gsi.gov.uk or by contacting your local CSCI office. White House Residential Home (The) DS0000067033.V315293.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 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 Outcomes Statutory Requirements Identified During the Inspection White House Residential Home (The) DS0000067033.V315293.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 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 the following standard(s): 1, 3 and 6. Quality in this outcome area was good. This judgement has been made using available evidence including a visit to this service. Service users had the information available to make an informed decision about admission to the home and had confidence their needs would be properly assessed. EVIDENCE: The Statement of Purpose and Service User Guide had been revised to reflect changes in the home following purchase by a new registered provider. Copies were seen in service users’ bedrooms. Both documents recorded that each service user’s rights would be maintained. Full and comprehensive pre-admission assessments were carried out by either the care manager of a funding authority or the home’s registered manager if the prospective service user was privately funded. Copies of these assessments were seen on the files of the last two people to be admitted. Intermediate care was not offered in the home.
White House Residential Home (The) DS0000067033.V315293.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 10 Health and Personal Care
The intended outcomes for Standards 7 – 11 are: 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. The service user’s health, personal and social care needs are set out in an individual plan of care. Service users’ health care needs are fully met. Service users, where appropriate, are responsible for their own medication, and are protected by the home’s policies and procedures for dealing with medicines. Service users feel they are treated with respect and their right to privacy is upheld. Service users are assured that at the time of their death, staff will treat them and their family with care, sensitivity and respect. The Commission considers Standards 7, 8, 9 and 10 the key standards to be inspected at least once during a 12 month period. JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for the following standard(s): 7, 8, 9 and 10. Quality in this outcome area was good. This judgement has been made using available evidence including a visit to this service. Service users’ personal and healthcare needs including medication were well met with evidence of good multi disciplinary working taking place. EVIDENCE: A number of care plans were examined. The recording system had been revised to ensure ease of use and better retrieval of information. Senior care staff and key workers were involved in the day-to-day recordings and the monthly evaluations. The registered manager was confident the care plan arrangements provided the information needed by staff to enable them to meet service users’ assessed needs. The care plans seen showed strengths and needs under a number of headings, for example, personal care and mobility. All were signed and dated. Care plans reflected any particular needs with regard to disability, gender or religion. White House Residential Home (The) DS0000067033.V315293.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 11 Risk assessments were in place on all files examined. These had been reviewed and updated as necessary. Good attention was being paid to service users’ health needs. A number of health related assessments were seen including those related to pressure area care, nutrition and continence promotion. Records of medical interventions were kept on file. Evidence was seen through the examination of some care plans and by observation on the day of the site visit of the good liaison between staff in the home and visiting health care professionals. The two groups enjoyed a good working relationship that could only benefit service users. One visiting health care professional said “Staff are proactive in referring matters to us and they are always relevant. They act appropriately on any advice we give.” None of the comment cards received from health care professionals raised any issues about the care offered to service users. Observation of and discussion about medication practices showed the home’s policies and procedures in relation to medicines were being followed and satisfied. Proper arrangements were in place for the receipt, storage, administration, recording and return of all medicines including controlled drugs. The registered manager and her staff were keen to maintain each service user’s privacy and dignity. Personal care was given behind closed doors and nothing was seen or heard at the time of the site visit to suggest staff were not vigilant in these matters. Privacy screening was available in shared rooms. Service users, relatives and visiting professionals expressed satisfaction about the quality of the care received. Service users made a number of complimentary comments including “I’m well looked after, I’ve no complaints” and “They look after me properly.” Relatives expressed similar sentiments. White House Residential Home (The) DS0000067033.V315293.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 12 Daily Life and Social Activities
The intended outcomes for Standards 12 - 15 are: 12. 13. 14. 15. Service users find the lifestyle experienced in the home matches their expectations and preferences, and satisfies their social, cultural, religious and recreational interests and needs. Service users maintain contact with family/ friends/ representatives and the local community as they wish. Service users are helped to exercise choice and control over their lives. Service users receive a wholesome appealing balanced diet in pleasing surroundings at times convenient to them. The Commission considers all of the above key standards to be inspected at least once during a 12 month period. JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for the following standard(s): 12, 13, 14 and 15. Quality in this outcome area was good. This judgement has been made using available evidence including a visit to this service. Service users experienced the lifestyle they wanted or chose. EVIDENCE: There were some social and leisure time activities available in the home. An activity organiser was employed for a number of weekly sessions generally offering activities on a communal basis though occasionally helping with individual pastimes for example knitting. Some service users said they preferred to organise their own leisure time and had no wish to join in any communal activities. They said they were quite happy to read, watch television or listen to the radio. One service user felt that there were not enough activities on offer and more could be done to arrange outings. The registered manager said the activity organiser took service user into town whenever possible. Service users received unrestricted visitors. Visitors said they were usually offered the common courtesy of suitable refreshments.
White House Residential Home (The) DS0000067033.V315293.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 13 Service users said they were free to use their rooms at anytime and to organise their day as they wished. They were able to bring in items of a personal nature and a number of these were seen during a tour of the premises. Three meals and a light supper were offered each day. All meals had the availability of a cooked option. There was a set menu though alternatives could be offered. Observation and discussion with the cook showed services users’ particular likes, dislikes and preferences were known and were being acted upon. Care was taken to provide specialist diets, for example diabetic. Those care plans seen noted any particular ethnic, cultural or religious needs with regard to food. The majority of service users were complimentary about the quality and quantity of food on offer for example “I like my food well done and that’s the way it comes” and “I’ve no grumbles; it must be very difficult to please us all the time.” There were however other opinions expressed about the food. Some service users felt there had been “a deterioration in food”. One relative was critical of the menu and the food being offered. They felt the balance was wrong, the quality rather poor and too much attention given to “new and modern spicy dishes.” The registered manager said the cook had only been employed at the home for a few days. They were to meet to discuss menus, suppliers and the catering service in general. The registered manager was adamant some service users preferred softer food while others were keen to be adventurous about trying different dishes. White House Residential Home (The) DS0000067033.V315293.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 14 Complaints and Protection
The intended outcomes for Standards 16 - 18 are: 16. 17. 18. Service users and their relatives and friends are confident that their complaints will be listened to, taken seriously and acted upon. Service users’ legal rights are protected. Service users are protected from abuse. The Commission considers Standards 16 and 18 the key standards to be inspected at least once during a 12 month period. JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for the following standard(s): 16 and 18. Quality in this outcome area was good. This judgement has been made using available evidence including a visit to this service. Service users were protected from abuse and had confidence their concerns would be listened to and acted upon. EVIDENCE: A complaints procedure was included in the Statement of Purpose and Service Users’ Guide. A copy was on display in the entrance hall. The procedure gave the necessary information to ensure complaints would be dealt with appropriately. One had been received since the last inspection. Service users and relatives expressed the confidence they could raise issues with the registered manager and staff. Relatives said “ If I was concerned about anything I would mention it to staff.” Service users confirmed they had no concerns but all felt sure that if they had any worries they would be dealt with quickly and properly. A copy of the updated multi-agency agreement on the safeguarding of adults was available in the home together with other relevant documents. Staff who had completed a National Vocational Qualification in care said that safeguarding adults was one of the mandatory units. Staff spoken with appeared confident in the actions to be taken in cases of alleged or suspected abuse. White House Residential Home (The) DS0000067033.V315293.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 15 The registered manager spoke of a recent incident that had been quickly and appropriately referred to the relevant Social Services Department for investigation under safeguarding procedures. Policies and procedures were in place regarding the management of service users’ money. The home’s recruitment procedure had been improved to ensure the safeguarding of service users through the obtaining of written references, POVA/First checks and enhanced disclosures from the Criminal Records Bureau. White House Residential Home (The) DS0000067033.V315293.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 16 Environment
The intended outcomes for Standards 19 – 26 are: 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. Service users live in a safe, well-maintained environment. Service users have access to safe and comfortable indoor and outdoor communal facilities. Service users have sufficient and suitable lavatories and washing facilities. Service users have the specialist equipment they require to maximise their independence. Service users’ own rooms suit their needs. Service users live in safe, comfortable bedrooms with their own possessions around them. Service users live in safe, comfortable surroundings. The home is clean, pleasant and hygienic. The Commission considers Standards 19 and 26 the key standards to be inspected at least once during a 12 month period. JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for the following standard(s): 19 and 26. Quality in this outcome area was good. This judgement has been made using available evidence including a visit to this service. Service users were provided with a pleasant and attractive place in which to live. EVIDENCE: The White House is an adapted property with a purpose built extension. Formerly a private residence it now provides accommodation for a maximum of 20 service users. It is within walking distance of the town. Public transport passes the door. The home is situated in its own well-tended grounds that have been provided with outdoor furniture. Level access is available from the rear external door. The premises appeared to be in good structural condition. The entrance porch was being redecorated. The registered manager said a number of other areas in the building were also to be redecorated. There is a passenger lift.
White House Residential Home (The) DS0000067033.V315293.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 17 There are 18 bedrooms two of which can be occupied on a shared basis. 13 single and both shared bedrooms have an en suite facility. Bedrooms seen were comfortable and well personalised. Communal bathrooms and toilets were located throughout the building. There were two communal sitting rooms and an area by the front door provided with seats. A separate dining room was spacious and well laid out to give service users freedom of movement and staff the space to assist where necessary. The laundry was small but seen as adequate for the size of home. Good systems were in place for the laundering and return of bedding, linen, towels and personal clothing. The home was generally clean, tidy and free from unpleasant odours. Service users and visitors said it was always maintained in such a way. During a tour of the building it was noted that one area was in need of high level cleaning together with attention to a number of mechanical ventilation fans. These matters were discussed with the registered manager who made immediate arrangements to have the areas cleaned and to ensure they were part of the regular cleaning schedule. Bed rails were seen in one room with safety bumpers. A full and detailed risk assessment was seen on file. The registered manager however agreed to discuss the matter with a visiting health care professional responsible for the particular service user. The matter was resolved during the site visit. White House Residential Home (The) DS0000067033.V315293.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 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 consider all the above are key standards to be inspected at least once during a 12 month period. JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for the following standard(s): 27, 28, 29 and 30. Quality in this outcome area was good. This judgement has been made using available evidence including a visit to this service. Service users’ assessed needs were met by a competent, able and trained staff. EVIDENCE: 12 care staff, two cooks, two domestics and two maintenance personnel were employed. Previous inspection reports had noted that sufficient staff were on duty. However comments received from service users, visitors and replies through comment cards suggested some concerns about present staffing cover. Comments included “I do feel staff are pushed to the limits as they appear understaffed”; and “the staff are always very busy and rushing about”. A number of other responses to comment cards reflected concerns about the number of staff on duty. Observations during the site visit showed staff to be busy but able to attend to service users’ requests and to have some time to talk with them. The registered manager said she was always available when on duty to assist with personal care. The registered person should keep staffing levels under review to ensure service users’ assessed needs continue to be fully met. White House Residential Home (The) DS0000067033.V315293.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 19 Of the 12 care staff six had a National Vocational Qualification in care to level 2. The registered manager said two further staff were to commence work towards this qualification in the near future. This was confirmed by one of the staff concerned. The files of a number of staff were examined including the last two to be employed. Two written references were now obtained for all staff prior to commencement of employment to promote the safeguarding of service users. Enhanced disclosures from the Criminal Records Bureau and POVA/First clearances, where necessary, were on file and were seen. In house induction was taking place. Further training to Skills for Care standards was being offered to new staff. Staff also received training to update and improve their knowledge and skills, for example moving and handling and first aid; and to increase their knowledge and skills, for example medication and dementia awareness. Staff confirmed such training was taking place and some certificates were seen. White House Residential Home (The) DS0000067033.V315293.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 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 31, 33, 35 and 38 the key standards to be inspected at least once during a 12 month period. JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for the following standard(s): 31, 33, 35, 36 and 38. Quality in this outcome area was good. This judgement has been made using available evidence including a visit to this service. Service users lived in a well-managed home. EVIDENCE: The manager has been in post since March 2005 securing her registration with the Commission in December of that year. She had a background in the care sector including work in nursing homes, residential homes and hospitals. She held a National Vocational Qualification (NVQ) in care to level 3. She was working towards a NVQ in management at level 4. She was aware of the need to complement this with a NVQ in care to level 4. Service users, relatives and staff were complimentary in their comments about the manager and the way she managed the home. White House Residential Home (The) DS0000067033.V315293.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 21 A quality assurance system was in place that included sending questionnaires to service users. The results of the last survey carried out over 12 months ago were seen. In view of the change of registered provider, the system should be reviewed, and revised and updated as required. Further surveys should then be undertaken to ensure the home is continuing to meet service users’ assessed needs through the delivery of good care and the provision of proper services and facilities. Service user meetings were held and the information from these was used to develop the service provided by the staff. The staff handled the personal money of a number of service users. Proper arrangements were in place for the correct management of this money. Supervision had been offered to staff on a regular basis but this appeared to have lapsed over the past few months. Formal supervision should recommence for all staff and be recorded to ensure they remain knowledgeable about and able to meet service users’ assessed needs. Policies and procedures were available related to the safety of the premises and those living and working therein. A number of safety reports and certificates relating to the premises were seen. All were relevant and up-todate. White House Residential Home (The) DS0000067033.V315293.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 22 SCORING OF OUTCOMES
This page summarises the assessment of the extent to which the National Minimum Standards for Care Homes for Older People have been met and uses the following scale. The scale ranges from:
4 Standard Exceeded 2 Standard Almost Met (Commendable) (Minor Shortfalls) 3 Standard Met 1 Standard Not Met (No Shortfalls) (Major Shortfalls) “X” in the standard met box denotes standard not assessed on this occasion “N/A” in the standard met box denotes standard not applicable
CHOICE OF HOME Standard No Score 1 2 3 4 5 6 ENVIRONMENT Standard No Score 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 3 X 3 X X N/A HEALTH AND PERSONAL CARE Standard No Score 7 3 8 3 9 3 10 3 11 X DAILY LIFE AND SOCIAL ACTIVITIES Standard No Score 12 3 13 3 14 3 15 3 COMPLAINTS AND PROTECTION Standard No Score 16 3 17 X 18 3 3 X X X X X X 3 STAFFING Standard No Score 27 3 28 3 29 3 30 3 MANAGEMENT AND ADMINISTRATION Standard No 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 Score 3 X 2 X 3 2 X 3 White House Residential Home (The) DS0000067033.V315293.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 23 NO 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. Standard Regulation Requirement Timescale for action 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 Refer to Standard OP27 OP33 Good Practice Recommendations The registered person should keep staffing levels under review to ensure service users’ assessed needs continue to be fully met. The present quality assurance system in the home should be reviewed, and revised and updated as required. The procedures should then be put into practice to ensure the home is continuing to meet service users’ assessed needs through the delivery of good care practices and the provision of proper services and facilities. Formal supervision should recommence for all staff and be recorded to ensure they remain knowledgeable about and able to meet service users’ assessed needs. 3 OP36 White House Residential Home (The) DS0000067033.V315293.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 24 Commission for Social Care Inspection York Area Office Unit 4 Triune Court Monks Cross York YO32 9GZ 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 House Residential Home (The) DS0000067033.V315293.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 25 - Please note that this information is included on www.bestcarehome.co.uk under license from the regulator. Re-publishing this information is in breach of the terms of use of that website. Discrete codes and changes have been inserted throughout the textual data shown on the site that will provide incontrovertable proof of copying in the event this information is re-published on other websites. The policy of www.bestcarehome.co.uk is to use all legal avenues to pursue such offenders, including recovery of costs. You have been warned!
