Inspection on 03/01/07 for Woodmarket House

This inspection was carried out on 3rd January 2007.

CSCI has not published a star rating for this report, though using similar criteria we estimate that the report is Good. The way we rate inspection reports is consistent for all houses, though please be aware that this may be different from an official CSCI judgement.

The inspector made no statutory requirements on the home as a result of this inspection and there were no outstanding actions from the previous inspection report.

Other inspections for this house

Woodmarket House 15/12/08

Woodmarket House 19/09/05

Woodmarket House 09/06/05

Woodmarket House 11/01/05

Woodmarket House 09/08/04

Woodmarket House 10/03/04

Similar services:

Hillside

Applegarth

Trevayler Residential Care Home

122 Scorer Street

Byars Care Home

St Marys Nursing Home

Jubilee Villa Care Home

Bramble Lodge

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

CARE HOMES FOR OLDER PEOPLE Woodmarket House Woodmarket Lutterworth Leicestershire LE17 4BZ Lead Inspector Susan Lewis Key Unannounced Inspection 3rd January 2007 9:30 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 Woodmarket House DS0000032528.V324168.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. Woodmarket House DS0000032528.V324168.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 3 SERVICE INFORMATION Name of service Woodmarket House Address Woodmarket Lutterworth Leicestershire LE17 4BZ 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) 01455 552678 01455 552678 www.leicestershire.gov.uk Leicestershire County Council Social Services Mr David Watkin Merry Care Home 40 Category(ies) of Dementia - over 65 years of age (20), Learning registration, with number disability over 65 years of age (4), Mental of places Disorder, excluding learning disability or dementia - over 65 years of age (6), Old age, not falling within any other category (40), Physical disability over 65 years of age (10), Sensory Impairment over 65 years of age (4) Woodmarket House DS0000032528.V324168.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 4 SERVICE INFORMATION Conditions of registration: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. No person falling within category DE(E) may be admitted to the home when 20 persons who fall within category DE(E) are already accommodated. No person falling within category MD(E) may be admitted to the home when 6 persons who fall within category MD(E) are already accommodated. No person falling within category LD(E) may be admitted to the home when 4 persons who fall within category LD(E) are already accommodated. No person falling within category PD(E) may be admitted to the home when 10 persons who fall within category PD(E) are already accommodated. No person falling within category SI(E) may be admitted to the home when 4 persons who fall within category SI(E) are already accommodated. Service Users Service users between the age of 55-65 who fall within the above categories and were resident in the care home at the date of registration may continue to reside there To be able to admit the named person under the age of 65 named in the variation application No. V31741 dated 25th April 2006 19th September 2005 7. Date of last inspection Brief Description of the Service: The fees for 2006/07 are £451 per week. The latest inspection report can be found in the reception area or in the main office. Woodmarket House is a care home providing personal care and accommodation for forty older persons. Woodmarket House has two respite beds, two assessment beds and four beds dedicated to rehabilitation. The forty single bedrooms are without ensuite facilities. The home has a large garden which is well maintained and which is accessible to all residents residing in the home. The premise is owned by the Leicestershire County Council Social Services Department and is situated close to Lutterworth, where residents have access to shops, pubs, the post office and other amenities. The home is easily accessible by private or public transport. Accommodation is provided over two floors with access between the floors being via a stairs or passenger lift. Communal areas are provided on both floors with a loop system in the main lounge for service users with a hearing impairment. Woodmarket House DS0000032528.V324168.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 5 SUMMARY This is an overview of what the inspector found during the inspection. The focus of the inspections undertaken by the Commission for Social Care Inspection is upon outcomes for service users and their views of the service provided. The primary method of Inspection used was ‘case tracking’ which involves selecting clients and tracking the care they received through looking at their records, talking with them where possible, and observing staff in their practice. The inspection was unannounced and took place over 7 hours one Wednesday in January 2007, and was conducted by one inspector as part of the annual inspection process. A partial tour of the building took place and a selection of residents’ bedrooms was inspected. Residents’ records were inspected and residents and a selection of staff on duty as well as visiting health care professionals were spoken with. Other information that was used to inform this report was the pre-inspection information provided by the registered manager, including comment cards received from residents, accident and incident reports received since the last inspection as well as the previous inspection report. What the service does well: Care plans provide detail of the care that staff should provide to meet the assessed needs of the residents and staff clearly know the residents very well and understand how to meet those needs. Residents and visitors were positive about their experience of living in the home both from the pre inspection information and in speaking with the residents comments received were. ‘Carers are very caring’ ‘I like it here staff are kind’ ‘We have an excellent manager and excellent staff’. ‘We feel Woodmarket House provides a very safe and caring home for xxx’. The food provided is appetising and nutritious, residents are offered a choice and the cook understood how to meet the nutritional needs of older people and people with special dietary needs. Woodmarket House DS0000032528.V324168.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 6 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. The summary of this inspection report can be made available in other formats on request. Woodmarket House DS0000032528.V324168.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 Woodmarket House DS0000032528.V324168.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. JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for the following standard(s): 3 and 6 Quality in this outcome area is good. Residents are assured that their needs will be met before into the home. Residents assessed and referred solely for intermediate care are helped to maximise their independence and return home. This judgement has been made using available evidence including a visit to this service. EVIDENCE: Four residents’ care plans were viewed for the purpose of this inspection. Three plans for residents admitted for residential care and one plan for a resident admitted for intermediate care. All plans seen had a full assessment carried out prior to moving to the home, this assessment then informed the care plan providing information for carers to meet residents needs. Residents spoken with said that they had felt confident that the home could look after them when they moved in. The home provides a small Intermediate Care service and there were two residents using that service at the time of the inspection. One support plan Woodmarket House DS0000032528.V324168.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 9 was looked at for a resident who had been admitted for intermediate care. The support plans differed from residents who were living in the home for purely residential care in that the occupational therapist visited to create a ‘goal plan’ with the person looking at what the person needed to achieve to enable them to return home. The plan viewed during this inspection was still in its infancy as the resident had only arrived in the last few days, the occupational therapist was still working with resident to create the plan. No one from Intermediate care was available during the inspection to talk to the inspector. From available evidence appropriate facilities and services were available to ensure that service users for intermediate care were enabled to return home. Staff spoken with said that residents who were admitted for intermediate care mostly met their own personal care needs and they provided support according to the goals set by the resident and occupational therapist. Woodmarket House DS0000032528.V324168.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. JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for the following standard(s): 7, 8, 9 and 10 Quality in this outcome area is good. Residents’ health, personal and social care needs are set out in plans, however they are not always reviewed regularly. Their health needs are met and medication is administered safely and protects residents from potential risk. This judgement has been made using available evidence including a visit to this service. EVIDENCE: The plans viewed were a standard social services format that provides key information to enable staff to meet the needs of the resident. Staff spoken with had an in depth knowledge of how to meet resident needs, including where residents had very limited communication abilities. Staff spoken with were able to give examples of how they ensured that they provided choice and appropriate care to residents with limited communication needs. Also where a resident had been identified with dementia and had had previous admissions to hospital, staff were aware of a plan of care and those staff spoken with were able to talk about it in detail, different staff were observed throughout the day implementing this plan. However plans showed no involvement from residents in their creation or review and not all plans were being reviewed regularly. In discussion with Woodmarket House DS0000032528.V324168.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 11 staff and the manager they confirmed that some residents and relatives are involved in their creation and review but it is about whether the resident wants to be involved or is able to. Some of the residents spoken with were aware of their plans and that they could see them if they wanted to. The Registered Person must ensure that where residents do not wish to be involved in their care plans this should be documented. Risk assessments were carried out and actions were detailed on how to minimise risk. Staff spoken with were aware of where residents were at risk and what they needed to do to support the resident in minimising that risk. Diary notes provided good information on the care provided to each resident and how they were that day including what clothes they chose to where. These notes also included where health care professionals had visited and what action staff had been asked to take. Visiting health care professionals were spoken with during the visit and spoke positively about the care they observed being provided by staff. Comments received were, ‘The staff are very good the care they give to residents is appropriate and they are always helpful’. ‘I am happy with the care residents receive, staff are kind and really care’. ‘Staff appear knowledgeable about residents needs and the process of aging’. ‘If I have ever had any concerns I have raised them with the staff in the office and they are always dealt with’. This ensures that there is good communication between carers and health care professionals and residents benefit from positive care. Medication was stored in an appropriate locked trolley in a locked room. Only trained staff administered medication and staff spoken with confirmed this practice. Residents spoken with said that they received their medication on time and that staff waited with them whilst they took their tablets. This ensures that medication is taken appropriately before staff then sign to say it has been administered correctly. Any controlled drugs are administered and stored correctly. It was noted that several residents have similar or the same name, as a precautionary measure to minimise the risk of a drugs error taking place this has been highlighted in the medication administration book. This is good practice, minimising a potential risk to the residents. Staff were observed throughout the day interacting with residents, they showed courtesy, and spoke to residents with respect. Residents spoken with confirmed that they always wore their own clothes and that staff knocked on their bedroom door before entering. Residents appeared clean and well groomed. Staff spoken with also understood the need to maintain residents dignity particularly when providing personal care. This supports residents privacy and dignity. Woodmarket House DS0000032528.V324168.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. JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for the following standard(s): 12, 13, 14 and 15 Quality in this outcome area is good. Residents have the lifestyle they want in the home and it meets their cultural and social needs. They are supported to maintain contact with family and friends. Meals are wholesome and nutritious. This judgement has been made using available evidence including a visit to this service. EVIDENCE: Information about activities was available throughout the home. Posters were also seen of the outcome of a resident survey regarding activities. This followed a recommendation from the last inspection to find out what activities residents want to do. Residents spoken with said that they enjoyed the sing a longs and felt they could choose to be involved in the activities if they wanted to. It was recommended at the last inspection that the activities residents take part in should be recorded. This is still not happening, advise was given on how this could take place. All residents spoken with said that they were happy with the meal times and felt that they were able to make choices about how they spent their day including what time they got up and went to bed. Woodmarket House DS0000032528.V324168.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 13 Visitors were seen throughout the day and those spoken with said that they could visit at any time, were made to feel welcome and could see their loved one in private if they so wished. Residents spoken with said that they had been able to bring in personal possessions and during the partial tour a selection of bedrooms were viewed and confirmed that bedrooms were personalised. Information regarding advocacy services was available for residents if they felt they needed support with anything. The midday meal was observed and it appeared appetising and nutritious. A choice was provided and residents spoken with made the following comments, ‘I have lived here four years and the food is better than the Ritz’. ‘The food is not to bad and you get a choice’. In discussion with the cook she understood the dietary needs of residents including those with special dietary needs such as diabetes and those who required a soft diet. This ensures that all residents receive meals that meet their nutritional needs. Woodmarket House DS0000032528.V324168.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. JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for the following standard(s): 16 and 18 Quality in this outcome area is good. Residents and their visitors fell confident that their complaints will be listened to and taken seriously and residents are protected from abuse.. This judgement has been made using available evidence including a visit to this service. EVIDENCE: The Commission has received no complaints about this service since the last inspection. The home received a complaint in November 2006 but this was later withdrawn. However records showed that all complaints received are dealt with according to policy and procedure. Residents spoken with said that they knew who to speak to if they wanted to complain and visitors confirmed that any problems they had were dealt with promptly by management. Information received in the pre inspection questionnaire also confirmed that those residents who were asked knew who to complain to and felt listened to. Staff spoken with also understood how to support residents if they wanted to complain, ensuring that residents have any concerns dealt with promptly. From training records it appeared that no staff had attended any Vulnerable Adults training, however in discussion with staff it was clear that they had a good understanding of what adult abuse was and their responsibility to speak to management if they suspected it, including what the ‘whistle blowing’ policy was and what it meant with regards any concerns they may have. Staff also knew where the relevant policies and procedures could be found if they needed to contact anyone. This shows that staff have a sound understanding of their duty of care in protecting residents. Woodmarket House DS0000032528.V324168.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 15 Residents spoken with all said that they felt safe and well cared for. ‘I have been in other homes and the staff here are much better I would recommend it’. ‘I like it here the staff are very kind’. ‘The manager is excellent and all the staff are excellent’. ‘If I wanted to complain I would speak to the manager and I know he would deal with it quickly’. Woodmarket House DS0000032528.V324168.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. JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for the following standard(s): 19 and 26 Quality in this outcome area is good. The residents live an environment that is generally well maintained and safe, however the unpleasant odour may adversely affect residents. This judgement has been made using available evidence including a visit to this service. EVIDENCE: The building was generally well maintained with the dining room, lounge, foyer, some corridors and 4 bedrooms having been decorated since the last inspection, this information was provided in the pre inspection questionnaire. The grounds were generally tidy for the time of year the inspection took place. The manager informed the inspector that the maintenance person had been on sick leave for a number of weeks and as a result some of the ongoing maintenance that would have taken place has not. There were no areas of maintenance noted on the day of the inspection that would significantly impact on the well being or safety of the residents. Woodmarket House DS0000032528.V324168.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 17 Although the home was clean and tidy there was a general odour noted throughout the day. This matter was discussed with the manager and he was aware of this and this was an area that was being affected by not having the maintenance man on site as he usually shampoos the carpets regularly. It is strongly recommended that the Registered Person make alternative arrangements for this task whilst the maintenance man is unavailable. Staff were observed maintaining good hygiene practice when carrying out tasks. The home has a good policy and procedure in this area and staff were aware of what they must do to minimise risk of cross infection within the home ensuring residents were protected. Residents spoken with said that their bedrooms were always clean and that their laundry was done regularly and was done to a good standard. Woodmarket House DS0000032528.V324168.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. JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for the following standard(s): 27, 28, 29 and 30 Quality in this outcome area is good. The numbers of trained staff on duty meets residents’ needs. Residents are protected by good recruitment practices. This judgement has been made using available evidence including a visit to this service. EVIDENCE: A requirement was made at the last inspection regarding staffing numbers. In discussion with staff, residents and visitors on the day of the inspection it was evident that there were enough staff on duty to meet the needs of the residents. Diary notes also showed that residents’ needs were being met. This requirement is met. Staff spoken with felt that the skills mix on each shift was good and that there were also enough domestic staff on duty to maintain the hygiene of the home and ensure that residents were well cared for, although did comment that they were missing the maintenance man. Staff spoken with said that they received lots of training and were encouraged to attend NVQ training. The pre inspection questionnaire information showed that out of 21 staff 13 staff had their NVQ level 2. This provides 65 of staff employed with this qualification meeting the 50 target set by the National Minimum Standards. This ensures that staff are competent to do their job and provide an acceptable level of service to residents. Recruitment files were looked at and showed that Criminal Records Bureau checks had been carried out prior to employment, and two references were Woodmarket House DS0000032528.V324168.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 19 also obtained. There was also evidence that staff receive a copy of the General Social Care Council Code of Conduct. This gives staff information on what standard of practice is expected as a care worker. Residents are protected by thorough recruitment procedures practiced within the home. Training records showed that induction training was carried out for all new staff and all mandatory training took place regularly. Staff spoken with said that they were provided with good access to training and were encouraged to attend courses such as Dementia Care, Alzheimer’s Awareness, Mental Health Awareness and Risk Assessment Training. Woodmarket House DS0000032528.V324168.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. JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for the following standard(s): 31, 33, 35 and 38 Quality in this outcome area is good. Residents’ benefit from living in a home that is managed by a person who is fit to do so and the home is run in the residents’ best interests. This judgement has been made using available evidence including a visit to this service. EVIDENCE: The registered manager has a several years experience of managing a care home and is aware of his responsibilities to maintain standards. He is responsible for only one home and can demonstrate that he has undertaken training to maintain his knowledge of changing practice in care. This ensures that residents receive the best possible care. There are residents meetings taking place, however in discussion with residents these do not appear to taking place as regularly as they used to. From records seen the last meeting was held in September 2006 and they are Woodmarket House DS0000032528.V324168.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 21 held every three months. It is recommended that the Registered Person should ask the residents if they would like the residents meetings to be held more frequently. Staff confirmed that staff meetings take place and minutes for these meetings were seen. This ensures that staff are kept up to date with any changes that may affect residents. Residents’ funds are kept securely and staff were aware that receipts needed to be kept for all transactions. Records seen showed that appropriate measures were taken to protect residents from the risk of financial abuse. Records were available to show that fire drills took place regularly to maintain the safety of staff and residents. A fire audit that took place in 2005 was considered suitable at that time by the fire service. All fire extinguishers have a certificate of conformity for September 2006. Evidence was seen that equipment such as the lift and assisted baths are regularly maintained to ensure that residents are safe. The registered manager informs the Commission of any incident that may affect the residents and all accidents are recorded. This shows that the manager is aware of his responsibilities to maintain a safe environment for residents. Staff spoken with said that they felt their health and safety was also supported and received training for safe moving and handling. Woodmarket House DS0000032528.V324168.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 X X 3 X X 3 HEALTH AND PERSONAL CARE Standard No Score 7 2 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 3 X 3 X X 3 Woodmarket House DS0000032528.V324168.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 23 Are there any outstanding requirements from the last inspection? No STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS This section sets out the actions, which must be taken so that the registered person/s meets the Care Standards Act 2000, Care Homes Regulations 2001 and the National Minimum Standards. The Registered Provider(s) must comply with the given timescales. No. 1 Standard OP7 Regulation 15 (2) (a)(b)(c) Requirement The Registered Person shall make the residents plan available to the resident and keep it under review and where practicable consult with the resident. Where residents are unable to be involved in creation or review of the care plan that this is recorded. Timescale for action 31/03/07 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 OP12 OP26 OP33 Good Practice Recommendations It is recommended that residents particiption in activites and recreational pursuits be recorded, along with any views which they express. The Registered Person should make alternative arrangements to shampoo the carpets whilst the maintenance person is on sick leave. The Registered Person should ask residents whether they would prefer residents meetings more frequently. Woodmarket House DS0000032528.V324168.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 24 Commission for Social Care Inspection Derbyshire Area Office Cardinal Square Nottingham Road Derby DE1 3QT National Enquiry Line: Telephone: 0845 015 0120 or 0191 233 3323 Textphone: 0845 015 2255 or 0191 233 3588 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 Woodmarket House DS0000032528.V324168.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!