CARE HOMES FOR OLDER PEOPLE
White Rose Court 40-42 Clifton Avenue Sheffield South Yorkshire S9 4BA Lead Inspector
Shirley Samuels Key Unannounced Inspection 09:00 8th February 2007 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 Rose Court DS0000003027.V311538.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 Rose Court DS0000003027.V311538.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 3 SERVICE INFORMATION
Name of service White Rose Court Address 40-42 Clifton Avenue Sheffield South Yorkshire S9 4BA 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) 0114 244 2310 0114 261 9410 none Fisherbell Limited Vacant Care Home 21 Category(ies) of Old age, not falling within any other category registration, with number (21) of places White Rose Court DS0000003027.V311538.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 4 SERVICE INFORMATION
Conditions of registration: Date of last inspection 15th March 2006 Brief Description of the Service: White Rose court is an older adapted building with a modern extensions providing accommodation on two floors accessible by stairs and lift. The home provides both single and double bedrooms and comfortable lounge and dining areas. The home is registered to provide care for 21 older people over the age of 65, for both short term and long term stays. The home is situated in a residential area close to amenities and public transport. Information about the home is displayed in the entrance and available in each of the service users bedrooms. Copies of the inspection reports were available in the entrance to the home. The fee is £303.00; there are additional charges for hairdressing, chiropody, bingo, toiletries and pub lunches. Further details regarding fees can be obtained from the home. White Rose Court DS0000003027.V311538.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 5 SUMMARY
This is an overview of what the inspector found during the inspection. This was an unannounced inspection carried out over seven and a half hours from 8:45-16:15. Ten service users three members of staff, one professional visitor and the manager of the home were spoken to about the quality of the service. Before the inspection the manager provided information about he home giving details regarding The home, policies and procedures, service users, staffing, and about professional visitors to the home. Observations were made of the interaction between staff and service users the general routines and activities. The building was inspected to establish standards of cleanliness, décor and safety. A selection of records were checked which included details of complaints, service user care plans, staffing, staff training, health and safety and polices and procedures. What the service does well:
Service users were assessed before moving into the home. Each service user had a care plan that included the majority of the information required and detailed the action that staff had to take to meet their needs. Service users health care needs were met and in the main the medication system ensured the safety of service users. Service users said they were “treated with respect” and that the staff were “kind and helpful at all times”. Service users were quite social and were able to find activities t pass the time of day, however there was some room for development in this area. Staff encouraged service users to maintain contact with their family and friends and service users said their visitors were “always made welcome”. Staff were able to say how they promoted service users independence and encouraged them to make choices. Service users said they were given choices about what they wanted to do during the day, meals raising and retiring times and said they felt no restrictions. Service users said they enjoyed their meals and they were given a choice at mealtimes. Details of how to make complaints were displayed in the entrance to the home and available in all the service users bedrooms. There has been one complaint made to the commission for social care inspection this related to food, laundry equipment, staffing levels, ventilation and lack of cleanliness. An inspection was completed 2/8/06. The issue relating to laundry equipment was upheld the remainder of the complaint was not upheld. Service users said they had someone to talk to if they were not happy. They added that any “small concerns were always sorted out”. Staff were able to say how on a daily basis they protected service users and talked about what action they would take if an allegation of abuse was reported to them. The environment was clean and reasonably maintained. Service users said they were happy with their White Rose Court DS0000003027.V311538.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 6 bedrooms. Bedrooms were in the main personalised and service users were able to bring personal possessions into the home with them. Staffing levels were in the main sufficient to meet the needs of the service users and training for staff was ongoing. Recruitment procedures were followed however some gaps were noted in this procedure. The home has a temporary manager who has demonstrated positive management skills and understanding of the Care Homes Regulations. The home however remains without a registered manager. There were procedures in place for the safe storage and management of service users monies and service users financial interest were safeguarded. Some health and safety issues were noted however in the main the health safety and wellbeing of service users and staff were promoted. Staff were aware of their responsibility for the safety of service users and for themselves. 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 Rose Court DS0000003027.V311538.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 7 DETAILS OF INSPECTOR FINDINGS CONTENTS
Choice of Home (Standards 1–6) Health and Personal Care (Standards 7-11) Daily Life and Social Activities (Standards 12-15) Complaints and Protection (Standards 16-18) Environment (Standards 19-26) Staffing (Standards 27-30) Management and Administration (Standards 31-38) Scoring of Outcomes Statutory Requirements Identified During the Inspection White Rose Court DS0000003027.V311538.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 8 Choice of Home
The intended outcomes for Standards 1 – 6 are: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Prospective service users have the information they need to make an informed choice about where to live. Each service user has a written contract/ statement of terms and conditions with the home. No service user moves into the home without having had his/her needs assessed and been assured that these will be met. Service users and their representatives know that the home they enter will meet their needs. Prospective service users and their relatives and friends have an opportunity to visit and assess the quality, facilities and suitability of the home. Service users assessed and referred solely for intermediate care are helped to maximise their independence and return home. The Commission considers Standards 3 and 6 the key standards to be inspected at least once during a 12 month period. JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for the following standard(s): Standards 3 and 6. Quality in this outcome area was good. This judgement has been made using available evidence, including a visit to the home. Service users did not move in the home without having their needs assessed. The home did not provide intermediate care. EVIDENCE: Three service user files were checked all contained an assessment carried out prior to admission. Staff said they received enough information before admission, which allowed them to make a judgement about whether, or not they could meet the individual needs. The assessment was then used by staff to develop a care plan. White Rose Court DS0000003027.V311538.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 9 Health and Personal Care
The intended outcomes for Standards 7 – 11 are: 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. The service user’s health, personal and social care needs are set out in an individual plan of care. Service users’ health care needs are fully met. Service users, where appropriate, are responsible for their own medication, and are protected by the home’s policies and procedures for dealing with medicines. Service users feel they are treated with respect and their right to privacy is upheld. Service users are assured that at the time of their death, staff will treat them and their family with care, sensitivity and respect. The Commission considers Standards 7, 8, 9 and 10 the key standards to be inspected at least once during a 12 month period. JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for the following standard(s): Standards 7, 8, 9 and10. Quality in this outcome area was good. This judgement has been made using available evidence, including a visit to the home. Each service user had an individual plan of care and their health care needs were fully met. In the main the homes medication policies and procedures protected service users from harm. Service users were treated with respect and their right to privacy was maintained. EVIDENCE: Three service users files were checked, all had a care plan, which in the main detailed their needs, and the action staff needed to take to meet those needs. The home is currently reviewing the format of the care plan and is in a period of transferring information from one format to another. The new format did not encourage staff to write freely about service users needs, but required more ticking of boxes which sometimes gave insufficient explanation. White Rose Court DS0000003027.V311538.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 10 For one service user who was described as displaying aggressive behaviour, there was no detail of how this behaviour could be reduced are how to mange when it was displayed. Records were kept of visits by health care professionals. Service users said they were “happy with he medical care they received”. The staff “always called the Doctor when needed”, “never been in hospital since I have been here”, The last time I was in hospital was when I had my daughter she is in her 60’s now, I am keeping well and I aim to keep it that way”. The district nurse spoken to on the day of the inspection was very happy with the standard of care offered to the service users and felt that she was very well supported during her visits to the service users. The nurse added that I was due to the excellent care and attention given to a service user who had been in bed for some time that their skin had not broken down. It was clear that staff were following instruction and the plan of care detailed in the nursing notes. Staff were trained to administer medication, records were kept of medication received into the home and of medication administered to service users. Service users said “The Doctor prescribes my medication and the staff give it to me”. The medication storage was checked, was clean and appropriately stored. Keys to the medication storage were kept secure to prevent unauthorised access. There was an example of one medication prescribed to be administered two daily being administered one twice daily. Prescription waiting to be taken to the pharmacist were insecurely stored creating a risk of them going missing and being misused. The manager secured the prescriptions immediately when bought to his attention. Service users said staff treated them with respect and spoke to them in a proper manner. Staff were observed approaching service users sensitively and in a respectful but relaxed way. Service users were clearly comfortable and felt able to share jokes with staff. Service users were able to state how on a daily basis they respected the rights of service users some of the examples included offering choice, sharing information and encouraging independence and not taking over when service users were able to do things for themselves. White Rose Court DS0000003027.V311538.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 11 Daily Life and Social Activities
The intended outcomes for Standards 12 - 15 are: 12. 13. 14. 15. Service users find the lifestyle experienced in the home matches their expectations and preferences, and satisfies their social, cultural, religious and recreational interests and needs. Service users maintain contact with family/ friends/ representatives and the local community as they wish. Service users are helped to exercise choice and control over their lives. Service users receive a wholesome appealing balanced diet in pleasing surroundings at times convenient to them. The Commission considers all of the above key standards to be inspected at least once during a 12 month period. JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for the following standard(s): Standards 12, 13, 14 and 15. Quality in this outcome area was good. This judgement has been made using available evidence, including a visit to the home. In the main service users social cultural and recreational needs were met and. were able to maintain contact with family and friends. Staff supported service users in making choices and promoted independence. In the main service users were provided with wholesome appealing balanced meals in appropriate surroundings. EVIDENCE: Service users said they were able to spend their time as they wished. They said they “went to the shops and out for walks in the local community and in the grounds of the home”. Many of the service users enjoyed the company of others and were observed sitting in small groups chatting, joking and passing the time of day. Since the last inspection the opportunity for service users to join in activities within the home has been reduced as the activities coordinator has left and this post has not been recruited to. White Rose Court DS0000003027.V311538.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 12 Service users said they “were able to receive visitors at any reasonable time” and that “visitors were always made welcome”. Staff said they “encouraged service users to keep in touch with family and friends”. Service users said they “were able to bring personal items into the home with them and arrange their room as they wished. The bedrooms seen were personalised and in some cases reflected service users interest and hobbies. Service users knew they could see their records kept about them if they wished. Service users said they were in the main satisfied with the food provided. Some of the comments received included.” Could not wish for better food”, I used to be a cook and the food is very good”, “Can’t grumble”, “brilliant”, “everything smashing”. They added that a choice is always offered, for breakfast, toast, cereals, cup of tea or coffee, sometimes cooked breakfast. They said they always went to the dinning room were they could sit together. If they were ill they said they were able to have their meals in their bedroom. Observation of the lunch was that some service users were over faced and given too larger potions. The alternative to the sausage pie was fish fingers. This was not a substantial alternative. Menus were displayed in the entrance to the home, they were however were covered by other notices, and were not visible. White Rose Court DS0000003027.V311538.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 13 Complaints and Protection
The intended outcomes for Standards 16 - 18 are: 16. 17. 18. Service users and their relatives and friends are confident that their complaints will be listened to, taken seriously and acted upon. Service users’ legal rights are protected. Service users are protected from abuse. The Commission considers Standards 16 and 18 the key standards to be inspected at least once during a 12 month period. JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for the following standard(s): Standards 16 and 18. Quality in this outcome area was good. This judgement has been made using available evidence, including a visit to the home. Complaints were listened to, taken seriously and acted upon and service uses were protected from abuse. EVIDENCE: Each service user had a copy of the complaints procedure, this included details of the commission for social care inspection. Service users said they had someone to talk to if they were not happy. There has been one complaint made to the commission for social care inspection this related to food, laundry equipment, staffing levels, ventilation and lack of cleanliness. An inspection was completed 2/8/06. The issue relating to laundry equipment was upheld the remainder of the complaint was not upheld. The home has a policy and procedures in place for reporting allegations of abuse. Staff were able to state the action they would take if an allegation was reported to them. There have been no allegations of abuse since the last inspection. Service users said they felt safe and staff spoke to them and treated them “in a kind and proper way”. White Rose Court DS0000003027.V311538.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 14 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): Standard 19 and 26 Adequate. Quality in this outcome area was adequate. This judgement has been made using available evidence, including a visit to the home. The environment is clean safe and reasonably maintained. EVIDENCE: Service users were happy with their bedrooms; they said that “staff were attentive to the cleanliness of the home”. There was evidence to show that floor coverings and carpets were cleaned regularly. An offensive odour was noted in one bedroom only. Some carpets were worn, faded and ill fitting where shrinkage had taken place. The lounge carpet was tapped across the join and in some of the bedrooms the pedestal washbasin had been replaced and the floor covering had not been made good. In some areas decoration had taken place and some lounge chairs replaced however wallpaper was damaged and some easy chairs and coffee tables were in a poor condition.
White Rose Court DS0000003027.V311538.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 15 In one bedroom where the window backed up to the extension to the home the windows were dirty and restricted the light into what was already a fairly dark room. One toilet seat was noted to be too small for the toilet bowl, this was dangerous and could cause skin tares. The manager said this would be replaced by 9/2/07. Clean clothing was stored on a rail in the toilet/bathroom, creating a risk of cross infection. The clinical waste bin sited in the car park was full and yellow clinical waste bags had been left on the ground It was reported that the extractor fan in the kitchen was out of order. The smoking area for service users was sited between the office and the dining area. A dilemma was created, as with the window open the dining area was cold and with the window closed the smell of smoke was evident in the dining area. White Rose Court DS0000003027.V311538.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 16 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): Standards 27, 28, 29 and 30. Quality in this outcome area was good. This judgement has been made using available evidence, including a visit to the home. Staff were able to met the needs of service users. Training was provided for staff that ensured they were fit to do their job. In the main the recruitment procedures ensured the safety of the service users. EVIDENCE: The rota showed that staffing levels agreed at the time of registration were being maintained. Staff said they felt there was enough staff on duty to meet the needs of the service users. The staff said the manager did help out with the direct care of the service users. Staff said the manager always tried to cover absences and they only worked short if unavoidable. The staff said “it is a very nice home to work in”. They felt they provided a good standard of care but acknowledged there was always room for improvement. In addition they said “they worked well as a team and felt cared for by their employer and appreciated by service users and management”. White Rose Court DS0000003027.V311538.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 17 The records showed that staff had received core training and the manager stated that 72 of the care staff were trained to NVQ level 2 in care. Staff said that training was ongoing and they were able to identify training needs. Two staff files were checked, they did not contain all the information regarding recruitment. Copies of certificates, copies of identification documents, and details of the hours employed to work were not always recorded. Gaps were noted in employment history and there was no evidence that this had been discussed at interview. White Rose Court DS0000003027.V311538.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 18 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): Standards 31, 33, 35 and 38. Quality in this outcome area was adequate. This judgement has been made using available evidence, including a visit to the home. The home does not have a registered manager. The temporary manager has experience in management and caring for the same client group. The home is run in the best interest of the service users and there are procedures in place to ensur service uses financial interest are safeguarded. In the main the health safety and welfare of service users is promoted and protected. White Rose Court DS0000003027.V311538.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 19 EVIDENCE: A temporary manager who has previous experience in management is running the home, over seen by the responsible person. There is no up to date evidence that service users have been recently surveyed about the service. The responsible individual and one of the owners regularly visit the home. Three service users finances were checked each account sheet contained the required information and the monies checked were accurate. Service users said they were “satisfied with the arrangements for the safe keeping of their monies and valuables”. All staff had received health and safety training. Staff were aware of their responsibilities for the health and safety of the service users and for themselves. They understood their responsibilities for making visual checks of equipment and for reporting faults and damages. Since the last inspection a new boiler had been fitted this was sited in a cupboard, which was not secure. Waste wood was found at the end of one of the corridors this created a hazard. Paint was found insecurely stored. Toiletries were insecurely stored in one of the bedrooms. Accident forms were completed; there was no evidence however to show that the manager reviewed accidents in an effort to reduce the incidents of accidents. Fire records were checked these showed that a number of staff had not received fire instruction in the last six months. This placed service users at risk. This was brought to the attention of the manager. Since the inspection the manager has provided notification dated 14/2/07 that all staff had received fire instruction. White Rose Court DS0000003027.V311538.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 20 SCORING OF OUTCOMES
This page summarises the assessment of the extent to which the National Minimum Standards for Care Homes for Older People have been met and uses the following scale. The scale ranges from:
4 Standard Exceeded 2 Standard Almost Met (Commendable) (Minor Shortfalls) 3 Standard Met 1 Standard Not Met (No Shortfalls) (Major Shortfalls) “X” in the standard met box denotes standard not assessed on this occasion “N/A” in the standard met box denotes standard not applicable
CHOICE OF HOME Standard No Score 1 2 3 4 5 6 ENVIRONMENT Standard No Score 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 x x 3 x x x HEALTH AND PERSONAL CARE Standard No Score 7 2 8 3 9 2 10 3 11 x DAILY LIFE AND SOCIAL ACTIVITIES Standard No Score 12 3 13 3 14 3 15 2 COMPLAINTS AND PROTECTION Standard No Score 16 3 17 x 18 3 2 x x x x x x 2 STAFFING Standard No Score 27 3 28 3 29 2 30 3 MANAGEMENT AND ADMINISTRATION Standard No 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 Score 3 x 3 x 3 x X 2 White Rose Court DS0000003027.V311538.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 21 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 OP7 Regulation 15 Requirement Service users care plans must detail service users needs in all the areas listed in the National Minimum Standards. The care plan must include details of the action to be taken to reduce the events of aggressive behaviour and how to manage this when displayed. Service users information must include their marital status. All medication must be administered according to the prescription label. Prescription must be securely stored. When giving service users a choice of main meal, options must be wholesome and substantial. All parts of the home used by service users must be kept reasonably decorated. Previous time scale 02/08/06 not met. All furniture and floor coverings in the care home must be in good condition therefore the
DS0000003027.V311538.R01.S.doc Timescale for action 10/05/07 2 3 4 5 OP7 OP9 OP9 OP15 17 Schedule 3 13 13 16 10/05/07 20/03/07 08/02/07 02/03/07 6 OP19 23 10/05/07 7 OP19 16 10/05/07 White Rose Court Version 5.2 Page 22 easy chairs in the lounges must be replaced and the carpets in the areas identified. (Previous timescale 20/4/05 and 02/08/06 not fully met). 8 OP19 23 The extractor fan in the kitchen must be repaired. All areas of the building must be maintained at no less than 21 degrees centigrade. Action must be taken to prevent the smell of smoke entering the dining area. The ill-fitting toilet seat must be replaced. The offensive odour must be eradicated from the bedroom identified. All windows must be cleaned regularly to prevent the restriction of natural light entering the room. 9 10 OP26 OP26 13 13 To reduce the risk of cross infection clothing must not be stored in the toilet /bathroom. Clinical waste must be stored appropriately and arrangements made for a frequency of collection, which meets the needs of the home. Staff files must contain details of and evidence of qualifications, employment history, details of contracted hours and all details listed in the Care Homes Regulation and schedule 2. All staff must receive fire instruction twice yearly. Procedures must be in place for management review of accidents, this should include
DS0000003027.V311538.R01.S.doc 20/03/07 20/03/07 20/03/07 11 OP29 19 Schedule 2 20/03/07 12 13 OP38 OP38 23 13 20/03/07 20/03/07 White Rose Court Version 5.2 Page 23 14 15 OP38 OP38 13 13 identifying ways of reducing the risk of accidents. The cupboard housing the new 20/03/07 boiler must be secured. Hazardous substances must be 20/03/07 stored safe and in line with a risk assessment. 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 OP12 OP15 Good Practice Recommendations To ensure that service users social and recreational needs are fully met the home should consider recruiting a new activities coordinator. Menus should be displayed in a place were service users can see them and should be in a large enough print to allow them to read them easily. White Rose Court DS0000003027.V311538.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 24 Commission for Social Care Inspection Sheffield Area Office Ground Floor, Unit 3 Waterside Court Bold Street Sheffield S9 2LR 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 Rose Court DS0000003027.V311538.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!
