Care Home: 1 Michigan Way

Similar services:

• Hillview Farm
• Dalewood Respite Care
• Orchard,The
• REACH Upton Court Road
• Fairways
• Treloar College
• Kestrel House, St Anne`s Opportunity Centre,
• Pinta

What the care home does well The home is well furnished, comfortable and homely. The home is clean and tidy and good standards of hygiene are maintained throughout the home. The home is well managed and the manager has a good knowledge and understanding of peoples` needs. Staff are well trained and given plenty of support and guidance to carry out their roles. People living at the home have access to a full range of healthcare support. People living at the home are supported to make choices about their life style, to take part in various activities and to keep in contact with friends and family. What has improved since the last inspection? What the care home could do better: Some aspects of care planning could be improved. At present the care plans are not in a format that is appropriate to the needs of people living at the home. Care plans would benefit from being more person-centred and need to provide more detail in some instances. Staffing levels need to be improved to ensure that there is a minimum of two staff on duty at the home at all times. Records to demonstrate that all necessary recruitment checks have been undertaken must be held at the home. CARE HOMES FOR OLDER PEOPLE 1 Michigan Way Totton Southampton Hampshire SO40 8XE Lead Inspector Chris Johnson Unannounced Inspection 10:45 24th July 2008 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 1 Michigan Way DS0000011984.V366913.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. 1 Michigan Way DS0000011984.V366913.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 3 SERVICE INFORMATION Name of service 1 Michigan Way Address Totton Southampton Hampshire SO40 8XE 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) 023 8086 5753 www.new-support.org.uk Dimension (NSO) Ltd Mrs Nicola Stewart Care Home 5 Category(ies) of Learning disability (5), Learning disability over registration, with number 65 years of age (5) of places 1 Michigan Way DS0000011984.V366913.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 4 SERVICE INFORMATION Conditions of registration: 1. Service users in the category LD referred to above must be at least 40 years of age. 25th July 2006 Date of last inspection Brief Description of the Service: 1 Michigan Way is registered to provide care and accommodation for five people with learning disabilities over the age of 40. The home is situated in a residential area of Totton, within a quarter of a mile of a large shopping complex. The home has two lounge areas, a communal kitchen and dining area. Each person has a single bedroom and use of a bathroom and shower room, both of which are accessible for people with mobility difficulties. The service is provided by Dimension (NSO) Ltd, which has a number of similar services in the area. On the 1st August 2006 the cost of living at this home was £1339.52 per week and this included seven hours day services per person. We do not have details of the current fees. 1 Michigan Way DS0000011984.V366913.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 5 SUMMARY This is an overview of what the inspector found during the inspection. The quality rating for this service is 2 star. This means the people who use this service experience good quality outcomes. The purpose of this inspection was to assess how well the home is doing in the meeting of all key National Minimum Standards, compliance with regulations and to assess what the outcomes are for people who live at his home. The findings of this report are based on a number of different sources of evidence. These included: An unannounced visit to the home, which was carried out over one day on 24th July 2008, whereby we looked at all key standards. Previously to this, we carried out an annual service review of the home on 17th January 2008 and this did not raise any issues of concern. All regulatory activity since the last inspection was reviewed and taken into account including any notifications sent to the Commission for Social Care. The manager completed an Annual Quality Assurance Assessment (AQAA) prior to the annual service review. Surveys were sent to everyone living at the home, twelve members of staff a GP and a multi disciplinary team. At the time of writing this report we had received completed surveys from three members of staff and one person living at the home. During this visit we looked at the physical environment including, people’s bedrooms and all communal areas of the home. Staff and care records were inspected. Some members of staff were spoken with and others were observed during their day-to-day interactions with those living at the home. We examined records, policies and procedures. We were able to hold brief discussions with some of the people living at the home. The manager was present during the visit to answer questions and discuss issues. Verbal feedback was provided at the end of the inspection. 1 Michigan Way DS0000011984.V366913.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 6 What the service does well: 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. 1 Michigan Way DS0000011984.V366913.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 1 Michigan Way DS0000011984.V366913.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, 5 and 6 Quality in this outcome area is good. This judgement has been made using available evidence including a visit to this service. Peoples’ needs are assessed prior to admission so that the individual and the home can be sure that the home is right for them and will meet the person’s needs. EVIDENCE: Previously to this inspection there had not been any new admissions to the home for a number of years. The last inspection of the home did not raise any concerns with this outcome area. The AQAA completed by the manager stated that, ‘Each resident has a written contract; prospective residents have the chance to visit the home and access the service. No one moves into the home without an assessment of their needs’. 1 Michigan Way DS0000011984.V366913.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 9 Since our last inspection of the home there had only been one new person move into the home. During this visit we asked to look at the pre admission assessments and care notes for this person. We saw that the home had obtained a care management assessment prior to the person moving in which described their care and support needs. In discussion with this person they told us that they had been able to visit the home with a friend and that they had also been given some information about the home such as pictures. They said that their impression of the home from visiting and looking at pictures of it was that it was ‘very nice. The one survey returned from someone living at the home told us that they had been asked whether they wanted to move in and that they had been given sufficient information to help them make this choice. 1 Michigan Way DS0000011984.V366913.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. This judgement has been made using available evidence including a visit to this service. People are fully supported with their healthcare needs and have access to a range of specialist healthcare support. EVIDENCE: The last inspection of the home did not raise any concerns with this outcome area. The AQAA listed areas where the home considered that they did well under this outcome heading. These were that they; respected privacy and dignity, that everyone had healthcare plans, that there were strict policies and procedures for managing medication and that the home had very good communication with the local GP surgery and other health staff. During this visit to the home we examined two peoples’ care plans and associated files. Records demonstrated that the home liaises with outside professionals and other agencies as appropriate and that people had access to 1 Michigan Way DS0000011984.V366913.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 11 a range of healthcare services such as dentists, GP’s, specialist healthcare teams and community nurses. Records showed that peoples’ healthcare needs are monitored and that they are supported to attend appointments. Care plans identified peoples’ specific health support needs such as those associated with mental health and epilepsy. Although we did not receive any feedback from healthcare agencies the evidence seen would support the information provided in the AQAA with regard to healthcare support. There was a difference between the two care plans looked at with regards to how they described peoples’ care and support needs and the level of detailed information recorded in them. However in discussion with staff and people living at the home we were satisfied that people were receiving the level of support and care that they required. In discussion with people living at the home they told us that the staff were very nice. Peoples’ description of the help that they received matched with what was recorded in the care plans. One of the care plans looked at was of someone who had moved into the home on a temporary basis. The manager explained that this was why there was a much less detailed care plan. Whilst this was accepted there were certain areas of the person’s needs that were not detailed within the care plan and this was brought to the managers’ attention. In discussion with staff we were confident that they were aware of all this persons needs and any associated risks and were able to describe how these were managed. Care plans will need to be reviewed however to ensure that all support needs are accurately reflected. In addition in their current format the care plans are not very person-centred. This was discussed with the manager who said that she was aware of this and explained that staff had been gradually receiving person-centred training. It was agreed that a more person –centred model would be adopted. We also checked the medication administration records of the people whose care plans we looked at during our visit to the home. The manager explained that there were clear procedures for the management of peoples’ medication and that the shift leader was delegated the responsibility for looking after the medication cabinet keys and the management of medication during their shift. We saw sufficient evidence to show that there were thorough systems for the receipt of medication received into the home and any medication being returned to the pharmacy. When we looked at the medication administration recording charts (MAR) we saw that there was one gap on each chart whereby the medication had not been signed as given. In both cases however from examination of the stock held at the home and from looking at the monitored dosage system it would indicate that on both occasions the medication had been administered though not signed. This was brought to the manager’s attention and she said that she would investigate the omissions and speak with the staff member concerned. Amendments to the legislation regarding the storage of controlled drugs in care homes providing personal care came into force in January 2008. Although at present the home does not hold any controlled medicines and data recorded 1 Michigan Way DS0000011984.V366913.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 12 in the AQAA told us that they have not done so in the proceeding twelve months. The manager was made aware of the fact that the current medication storage facilities would probably not comply with this legislation. Before such time as any controlled medicines are looked after in the home the home will need to clarify this and take the necessary action. 1 Michigan Way DS0000011984.V366913.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 13 Daily Life and Social Activities The intended outcomes for Standards 12 - 15 are: 12. 13. 14. 15. Service users find the lifestyle experienced in the home matches their expectations and preferences, and satisfies their social, cultural, religious and recreational interests and needs. Service users maintain contact with family/ friends/ representatives and the local community as they wish. Service users are helped to exercise choice and control over their lives. Service users receive a wholesome appealing balanced diet in pleasing surroundings at times convenient to them. The Commission considers all of the above key standards to be inspected. JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for the following standard(s): 12,13,14 and 15 Quality in this outcome area is good. This judgement has been made using available evidence including a visit to this service. People are supported to engage in activities and to keep in contact with friends and family. EVIDENCE: The last inspection of the home did not raise any concerns with this outcome area. Discussions with people living at the home and feedback from surveys were that people could make their own decisions about what they did during the day. During our visit people were observed to be able to choose how to spend their time and to engage in activities of their own choosing. Information in the AQAA told us that people are supported to take part in holidays and activities outside of the home. This was substantiated through examination of records discussion with staff and people living at the home and from observation. Everyone living at the home is funded for day service activities. Recent activities included trips to France, the Isle of Wight, theatre trips, cinema, pub trips and going out for meals. 1 Michigan Way DS0000011984.V366913.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 14 People were observed people to be offered choices for lunch and people had different things according to their preferences and dietary requirements. We saw records of menus and these demonstrated that people are offered a balanced and varied menu. In discussion with people living at the home they commented that the food was, ‘Very nice’ and said that they liked it. People told us that they could receive visitors and keep in touch with friends and relatives. There was a visitors’ policy on display in the home stating that visitors were welcome at any time. People told us that they could take doing tasks around the house and that staff gave them support with such things as keeping their rooms clean and tidy and with doing their laundry. Dependant on their needs people were observed to be able to make themselves drinks as frequently as they chose. Whilst it was difficult to fully evaluate from talking with people living at the home the extent to which they could exercise choice over their lives. Discussions with staff provided sufficient evidence to that people are encouraged and supported to make their own decisions 1 Michigan Way DS0000011984.V366913.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 15 Complaints and Protection The intended outcomes for Standards 16 - 18 are: 16. 17. 18. Service users and their relatives and friends are confident that their complaints will be listened to, taken seriously and acted upon. Service users’ legal rights are protected. Service users are protected from abuse. The Commission considers Standards 16 and 18 the key standards to be. JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for the following standard(s): 16 and 18 Quality in this outcome area is good. This judgement has been made using available evidence including a visit to this service. Satisfactory systems are in place for people to address any concerns or complaints that they may have and to protect them from abuse. EVIDENCE: No complaints regarding the home have been reported to the Commission for Social Care Inspection since the last inspection. Data in the AQAA told us that the home had not received any complaints in the last twelve months and examination of the home’s complaint log supported this. The home has a complaints procedure and people living at the home have access to an independent advocacy service to support them should they need so. Staff spoken with and those that returned a survey demonstrated that they were aware of the issues and their responsibilities towards safeguarding people and passing on any concerns. It was noted that there was not a complaints procedure on display within the home. The manager stated that people living at the home had been given a copy and that this was in pictorial format and had been explained to them. It was difficult to ascertain peoples’ understanding of the procedure however in conversation people spoken with during our visit to the home told us that if they felt cross or unhappy then they would speak to a staff member. 1 Michigan Way DS0000011984.V366913.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 16 The home has systems in place for the protection of those that live there such as the management of peoples’ money and we saw sufficient evidence (as discussed in the management section of this report) to show that procedures were being followed. 1 Michigan Way DS0000011984.V366913.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 17 Environment The intended outcomes for Standards 19 – 26 are: 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. Service users live in a safe, well-maintained environment. Service users have access to safe and comfortable indoor and outdoor communal facilities. Service users have sufficient and suitable lavatories and washing facilities. Service users have the specialist equipment they require to maximise their independence. Service users’ own rooms suit their needs. Service users live in safe, comfortable bedrooms with their own possessions around them. Service users live in safe, comfortable surroundings. The home is clean, pleasant and hygienic. The Commission considers Standards 19 and 26 the key standards to be inspected. JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for the following standard(s): 19, 24 and 26 Quality in this outcome area is good. This judgement has been made using available evidence including a visit to this service. The home is well furnished, comfortable and homely. The home is clean and tidy and good standards of hygiene are maintained throughout the home. EVIDENCE: During the visit to the home we saw all communal areas and a selection of peoples’ bedrooms. People had been able to personalise their rooms with pictures, belongings, televisions and audio equipment. People were observed to access and spend time in their rooms as they chose. The AQAA did not identify any specific improvements that had been made to the environment other than, ‘General household decorating’ and that they had encouraged people to purchase more personal possessions for their rooms. The AQAA told us that they planned to purchase a new three-piece suite in the next 1 Michigan Way DS0000011984.V366913.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 18 twelve months and also stated that they recognised that due to peoples increasing age it may be necessary to purchase specialist equipment. The home has two lounge areas, a communal kitchen and dining area. Each person has a single bedroom and use of a bathroom and shower room, both of which are accessible for people with mobility difficulties. The home was clean and tidy throughout. It was evident from speaking with people and through observation that good standards of hygiene are maintained. The building is owned and maintained by a housing association. The general upkeep of the building is maintained by the housing association and the home reports to receive a good service from them. The home replaces and renews furnishings and décor as necessary. Furnishings were domestic in scale and people appeared relaxed and at home in the surroundings. In discussion with people they were able to tell us that they were happy with their bedrooms and the home in general. 1 Michigan Way DS0000011984.V366913.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 19 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 adequate. This judgement has been made using available evidence including a visit to this service. The staff receive training appropriate to the needs of those living at the home. There is a need to provide sufficient levels of staffing at all times of the day and according to the needs of people living at the home. Improvements also need to be made to the system of recording recruitment practices to fully demonstrate that a thorough process is followed. EVIDENCE: We looked at the staff for the day of the visit and this proved to be a true reflection of the actual staff on duty. Staff rotas are planned in advance and were available for the following month. From examination of the rotas we saw that often there is only one person on the afternoon shift. This means that apart from handover periods i.e. 2-3pm and 9-9.30 pm there is often only one staff member on duty. This is a reduction in staffing levels since the last time we inspected the home. Staff did say that it made sense to have more staff on duty in the mornings, as this was usually the busiest part of the day. However as part of their tasks the person on the afternoon shift has to cook the main meal of the day. Equally it also impacts on the opportunity for those living at the home to be able to go out during this period, as they would not be sufficient staff to facilitate this. Whilst it was evident that people did have the 1 Michigan Way DS0000011984.V366913.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 20 opportunity to go out in the afternoons and evenings this can only happen at times when there are two staff on duty. This was discussed with the manager who said that she did not see it as an issue as there were staff that could be called on should the need arise. However this relies on the goodwill and availability of staff that are not scheduled to work. The home will need to address this. Comments from staff regarding staffing levels at the home varied. For instance out of the three surveys returned one person responded that staffing levels were ‘always’ sufficient, one answered ‘usually’ and the third said that there ‘sometimes’ were. Staff spoken with and those that returned a survey told us that they received relevant and up to date training. This was supported by examination of staff training files. We saw a training calendar detailing courses that staff were due to attend over the forthcoming months. Several of these were specific to the needs associated with old age. This is important as although each person has a primary need associated with a learning disability they are also all aging and therefore have needs related to the aging process. We looked at the recruitment records for one member of staff this being the only person to be recruited and who had commenced work at the home since our last visit. Dimension (NSO) Ltd has an agreement with the Commission for Social Care Inspection that staff records will be held at their head office. However as part of this agreement they are required to hold evidence within the home that certain checks have been completed including the dates of when these were obtained. The manager had a printout that provided some evidence that checks had been undertaken although it was unclear from the printout the actual date that a Criminal Records Bureau check had been undertaken. Also the date that the person had commenced working at the home had not been recorded. In discussion with the manager we were assured that all checks are undertaken prior to someone starting to work at the home. We know from previous inspections that an appropriate system is in place and we were shown the records of someone who had just been interviewed for a vacant post and this provided evidence that checks are undertaken prior to being allowed to work at the home. The home will need to ensure however that all records pertaining to recruitment are held at the home as per the agreement. Staff told us that they had received a thorough induction and we saw sufficient evidence to support this. 1 Michigan Way DS0000011984.V366913.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 21 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. This judgement has been made using available evidence including a visit to this service. The home is well managed and the manager is accessible to the people who live at the home and the staff. The home is well maintained and equipment is serviced to keep everyone safe. EVIDENCE: The registered manager of the home has completed an NVQ Level Four since our last visit to the home. There were not any previous requirements to follow up at this inspection. Staff told us that they found the manager to be supportive and that they met with her on a regular basis. Records of supervision were not available to evidence this, although the manager reported 1 Michigan Way DS0000011984.V366913.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 22 that every-one had received regular supervision. It was agreed that a record would be maintained in future. The AQAA gave details and evidence that maintenance checks, tests and servicing of equipment are carried out regularly. Evidence seen during the visit substantiated this. Examination of the fire logbook confirmed that weekly fire alarm checks are undertaken. We also saw that a representative from the organisation carries out regular health and safety assessments of the home and that records related to health and safety are checked during monthly visits to the home by a senior manager within the organisation. The home has systems in place to monitor the quality of service that it provides. A representative of the organisation regularly undertakes visits to the home and reports of these visits were available for examination. From these we saw that during these visits the views of those living at the home are listened to, records are checked and the safety and upkeep of the environment is monitored. Also any shortcomings with the service are identified and plans are put in place to rectify these. We noted that records were not available of any recent resident meetings. In discussion the manager said that formal meetings had not been successful and that it had proved better to speak with people on an individual basis. The AQAA identified this as an area that the home recognised it could improve and we will look at this at subsequent inspections. The home has the facility to looks after peoples’ money and to support them with their finances. We looked at the procedures for looking after peoples’ money and checked the records for two people. All transactions had been recorded and receipted as per the homes’ policy with regular checks carried out by staff and the manager. This inspection did not raise or identify any concerns with regard to safety within the home environment. 1 Michigan Way DS0000011984.V366913.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 23 SCORING OF OUTCOMES This page summarises the assessment of the extent to which the National Minimum Standards for Care Homes for Older People have been met and uses the following scale. 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 3 N/A 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 3 X 3 STAFFING Standard No Score 27 2 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 3 1 Michigan Way DS0000011984.V366913.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 24 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. 1 Standard OP27 Regulation 18 Timescale for action There must be a minimum of two 15/09/08 staff on duty at the home at all times. Records to demonstrate that all necessary recruitment checks have been undertaken must be held at the home. 15/09/08 Requirement 2 OP29 19 Schedule 2 RECOMMENDATIONS These recommendations relate to National Minimum Standards and are seen as good practice for the Registered Provider/s to consider carrying out. No. Refer to Standard Good Practice Recommendations 1 Michigan Way DS0000011984.V366913.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 25 Commission for Social Care Inspection Maidstone Office The Oast Hermitage Court Hermitage Lane Maidstone ME16 9NT 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 1 Michigan Way DS0000011984.V366913.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 26 - 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!