Care Home: 2 Frederick Street

Similar services:

• 22 Sandown Road
• The Highlands
• Dilston College Of Further Education
• West View House
• Prince Bishop Court
• Park View (15)
• Craigmore House
• 1 Lanark Close

What the care home does well The manager and staff worked well to deliver a caring service that benefited the service users who live 2 Frederick Street. The manager and staff encouraged service users to be independent and staff gave suitable support, with assisting service users when it was needed. There was a good relationship between people who worked and lived at the home. One member of staff told us, "Service users enjoy living their lives how they want to". People who lived at the home were treated as individuals. Management and staff were obviously enthusiastic with all aspects of their work and they clearly enjoyed caring for the service users. A member of staff said, "It is great working here". What has improved since the last inspection? A fire safety risk assessment, for use of the gas fire, had been completed and recorded. Staff had regular one to one supervision and annual appraisals. What the care home could do better: For Care Plans to be updated after every review and alterations made in Care Plans to be signed and dated. The home to have a record of all food provided for service users. Healthcare records show the regularity of healthcare treatments and appointments. The Complaints Procedure includes details of the commissioning authorities. The home develops and implements a quality assurance system. CARE HOME ADULTS 18-65 2 Frederick Street Stockton-on-Tees TS18 2BF Lead Inspector Brenda Grant Key Unannounced Inspection 10th December 2007 09:45 2 Frederick Street DS0000000037.V356287.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 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 2 Frederick Street DS0000000037.V356287.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 Adults 18-65. 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. 2 Frederick Street DS0000000037.V356287.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 3 SERVICE INFORMATION Name of service 2 Frederick Street Address Stockton-on-Tees TS18 2BF 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) 01642 607142 01642 618518 www.reallifeoptions.org Real Life Options Kathryn Ann Jackson Care Home 3 Category(ies) of Learning disability (3) registration, with number of places 2 Frederick Street DS0000000037.V356287.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 4 SERVICE INFORMATION Conditions of registration: 1. The registered person may provide the following category of service only: Care home only - Code PC To service users of the following gender: Either Whose primary care needs on admission to the home are within the following category: 2. Learning disability - Code LD, maximum number of places: 3 The maximum number of service users who can be accommodated is: 3 20th February 2007 Date of last inspection Brief Description of the Service: Number 2 Frederick Street is a modern purpose-built single storey property situated close to Stockton town centre. Accommodation is provided in three single bedrooms, none having an en-suite facility but all meeting the spatial requirements of the National Minimum Standards. Communal facilities comprise: bathroom/WC, separate WC, kitchen, lounge, dining room. Number 2 Frederick Street is registered to provide accommodation for three adults with a learning disability. The home currently charges £1,097 per person per week. 2 Frederick Street DS0000000037.V356287.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 5 SUMMARY This is an overview of what the inspector found during the inspection. The inspection was an unannounced inspection. We assessed the information from: the Annual Quality Assurance Assessment that had been completed by the manager and we carried out a visit to the home. The visit took place over one day, five hours and thirty minutes in total. Discussion took place with two staff and the manager. Service users had communication difficulties therefore we observed three service users and had short discussions with two of the service users. We received two surveys, completed by staff and two surveys from carers/relatives. We looked around the home as well as examining a number of records which included those for: service users and staff files, health and safety and maintenance checks, complaints, accidents and medication. The findings from the inspection were of the manager and staff providing a good care service, creating a comfortable, homely atmosphere and making every effort to meet the needs of individual residents. What the service does well: What has improved since the last inspection? A fire safety risk assessment, for use of the gas fire, had been completed and recorded. Staff had regular one to one supervision and annual appraisals. 2 Frederick Street DS0000000037.V356287.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 6 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. 2 Frederick Street DS0000000037.V356287.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 7 DETAILS OF INSPECTOR FINDINGS CONTENTS Choice of Home (Standards 1–5) Individual Needs and Choices (Standards 6-10) Lifestyle (Standards 11-17) Personal and Healthcare Support (Standards 18-21) Concerns, Complaints and Protection (Standards 22-23) Environment (Standards 24-30) Staffing (Standards 31-36) Conduct and Management of the Home (Standards 37 – 43) Scoring of Outcomes Statutory Requirements Identified During the Inspection 2 Frederick Street DS0000000037.V356287.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 8 Choice of Home The intended outcomes for Standards 1 – 5 are: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Prospective service users have the information they need to make an informed choice about where to live. Prospective users’ individual aspirations and needs are assessed. Prospective service users know that the home that they will choose will meet their needs and aspirations. Prospective service users have an opportunity to visit and to “test drive” the home. Each service user has an individual written contract or statement of terms and conditions with the home. The Commission consider Standard 2 the key standard to be inspected. JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for the following standard(s): People who use the service experience good quality outcomes in this area. Standard 2 Service users individual aspirations and needs are assessed before they are admitted to the home. We have made this judgement using a range of evidence, including a visit to the service. EVIDENCE: The manager informed us, that all the service users who lived at 2 Frederick Street had been assessed before they were admitted to the home. All service users had lived at the home for a number of years and their assessment documentation had been put into storage therefore service user’s assessments were not available on the day of the inspection ‘site’ visit. The Annual Quality Assurance Assessment and staff we spoke with informed us, that each person admitted to the home had an up to date review of care needs which was completed by a Care Manager or Social Worker. The home’s admissions procedure had information that people would have introductory visits to the home before they went to live at 2 Frederick Street. The home would encourage families and advocates to be involved with the assessment process and initial visits. In addition to this, existing service users views, and/or their feelings, would be considered before a new person would 2 Frederick Street DS0000000037.V356287.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 9 be admitted to the home. All information gathered from the assessment and the visits would be used to develop the person’s Care Plan. 2 Frederick Street DS0000000037.V356287.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 10 Individual Needs and Choices The intended outcomes for Standards 6 – 10 are: 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. Service users know their assessed and changing needs and personal goals are reflected in their individual Plan. Service users make decisions about their lives with assistance as needed. Service users are consulted on, and participate in, all aspects of life in the home. Service users are supported to take risks as part of an independent lifestyle. Service users know that information about them is handled appropriately, and that their confidences are kept. The Commission considers Standards 6, 7 and 9 the key standards to be inspected. JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for the following standard(s): People who use the service experience good quality outcomes in this area. Standards: 6, 7 & 9 The home has Care Plans, for each service user, which are regularly reviewed. The plans also contain a Risk Assessments and include how risks are managed. Service user’s files inform how they are supported and assisted with making decisions and living their lives independently, within their capabilities. We have made this judgement using a range of evidence, including a visit to the service. EVIDENCE: Each service user’s Care Plan was examined. Care Plans had evidence that service user’s advocates were involved with and agreed with the plans. Care Plans had all of the details about the person’s care needs, how people wanted to live their lives, religion and beliefs and likes and dislikes. All service users had communication difficulties and the Care Plans informed how service users communicated and detailed how people would be able to understand them. Staff had pictures, symbols and objects that helped them with communicating with service users. Service user’s files also had a record of restrictions and control measures. There were details of service user’s goals and the plans to be achieved during the year. Care Plans also included Risk Assessments, which 2 Frederick Street DS0000000037.V356287.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 11 gave information about how risks would be managed. Some of the information, for two Care Plans, was not in correct order and Risk Assessment numbering was confusing; making it difficult to determine how many assessments there were. Risk Assessments and Care Plans were not always updated at least every six months but regular reviews had taken place. Some Care Plans had been altered but the new entries had not been signed and dated. In surveys, two staff told us, they were always given up to date information about service users. The Annual Quality Assurance Assessment informed us, the home welcomed feedback from families and advocates. The manager and staff told us, the home had regular service user meetings that service users could attend but that was not always possible because service users sometimes did not want to be at the meetings. Key Workers always attended meetings and represented the service users. The meetings were an opportunity for the staff group to consider and discuss service user’s care needs. Staff said, they supported service users with making decisions about their lives and service users were offered choices. On the day of the inspection ‘site’ visit, service users appeared to be satisfied with how they spent the day. Staff told us, service users were not in control of their finances but service users were involved with going shopping and buying their own personal possessions. 2 Frederick Street DS0000000037.V356287.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 12 Lifestyle The intended outcomes for Standards 11 - 17 are: 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. Service users have opportunities for personal development. Service users are able to take part in age, peer and culturally appropriate activities. Service users are part of the local community. Service users engage in appropriate leisure activities. Service users have appropriate personal, family and sexual relationships. Service users’ rights are respected and responsibilities recognised in their daily lives. Service users are offered a healthy diet and enjoy their meals and mealtimes. The Commission considers Standards 12, 13, 15, 16 and 17 the key standards to be inspected. JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for the following standard(s): People who use the service experience good quality outcomes in this area. 12, 13, 15, 16 & 17 Staff appropriately support and care for service users. Service users are offered choices of daily activities and service users can live their lives as they wish. Records did not completely make it clear that service users have a varied and healthy diet. Mealtimes are enjoyable. We have made this judgement using a range of evidence, including a visit to the service. EVIDENCE: Staff told us, they tried to make sure service users had opportunities of different experiences. One service user had enjoyed the experiences of going on a boat and a train ride. Staff encouraged service users to be independent. Sometimes service users helped, within their capabilities, with making snacks and drinks. One service user was seen helping staff to prepare and make a hot drink. Staff told us, there were times when service users were supported with making their own meals and keeping their bedrooms tidy. 2 Frederick Street DS0000000037.V356287.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 13 Service users were offered many choices such as, what to wear, when to get up and go to bed and what to do each day. Service users had weekly plans, for activities. The manager told us, there was always flexibility with the planned activities and each day the activity depended on the service user’s wishes. Staff told us, service users went out into the local community and on the day of the inspection ‘site’ visit, a service user, supported by a member of staff, went to a local café for a drink. Staff supported service users with their chosen leisure activities, going shopping, trips out and with other interests and hobbies. Staff supported service users with choosing, planning and going on an annual holiday. The manager and staff told us, the home had use of a car, so there was more opportunity for service users to go to different places, in the local area and out of the town. On the day of the inspection ‘site’ visit, one service user, with the manager, went in the car for a short ride in the car. S/he had obviously enjoyed the outing. Staff said, they assisted and encouraged service users to keep contacts with their families and friends. The manager told us, the home also supported service users with contacting an advocate. We saw there was a good relationship between staff and service users and staff spoke to service users in a respectful way. Staff told us that they respected service user’s having a right to privacy and service users could stay in their rooms or be in communal rooms, as they wished. In a survey a carer/relative informed us, ‘Service users are treated with respect and as individuals’. Staff said they cooked the meals for service users. Staff had completed training for Basic Food Hygiene. One staff told us, “We all manage to do a bit of cooking”. There was a planned menu for main meals but the record for breakfast and supper was service user’s choice. The choices were not recorded. Records included: food, fridge and freezer temperatures and a cleaning rota. On the day of the inspection ‘site’ visit, service users were seen to have enjoyed their lunch. 2 Frederick Street DS0000000037.V356287.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 14 Personal and Healthcare Support The intended outcomes for Standards 18 - 21 are: 18. 19. 20. 21. Service users receive personal support in the way they prefer and require. Service users’ physical and emotional health needs are met. Service users retain, administer and control their own medication where appropriate, and are protected by the home’s policies and procedures for dealing with medicines. The ageing, illness and death of a service user are handled with respect and as the individual would wish. The Commission considers Standards 18, 19, and 20 the key standards to be inspected. JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for the following standard(s): People who use the service experience good quality outcomes in this area. Standards: 18, 19 & 20 There is satisfactory support for health and personal care and there is suitable recording of medication. We have made this judgement using a range of evidence, including a visit to the service. EVIDENCE: The Annual Quality Assurance Assessment informed us that person centred planning addressed all health and personal care needs. Service user’s files, showed they were supported with all personal and healthcare needs. Service users were encouraged to manage some simple personal care tasks but staff needed to give a lot of support. There were records which gave details of service user’s wishes and preferences for personal care. The home kept records of all healthcare needs and for service user’s appointments with healthcare professionals. There was information relating to the outcome of medical appointments and, where necessary, Care Plans were updated. The manager told us, when service user’s needed specialist healthcare services the home ensured the appropriate referrals were made and 2 Frederick Street DS0000000037.V356287.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 15 followed through. There were records for regular checks for dental, optical and other healthcare related treatment and all service users were offered an annual health check. The list of records, for service user’s healthcare treatment, were not kept in a date sequence therefore it was difficult to determine the regularity of appointments. All information was repeated in service user’s daily notes. We looked at the home’s recording of medicines. Medication Administration Records had signatures of the staff who had administered the medicine to the service users and there was a record of all medicines at the home. Staff, who administered medicines, had completed training for ‘safe handling of medicines’. There was a satisfactory lockable facility for storing medicines. None of the service users were capable of looking after their own medicines. 2 Frederick Street DS0000000037.V356287.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 16 Concerns, Complaints and Protection The intended outcomes for Standards 22 – 23 are: 22. 23. Service users feel their views are listened to and acted on. Service users are protected from abuse, neglect and self-harm. The Commission considers Standards 22, and 23 the key standards to be inspected. JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for the following standard(s): People who use the service experience good quality outcomes in this area. Standards: 22 & 23 Service users are confident their views are listened to and acted upon and they are protected from abuse, neglect and self-harm. We have made this judgement using a range of evidence, including a visit to the service. EVIDENCE: The home had a Complaint’s Procedure that was shared with advocates, care managers and service user’s relatives. The home also had a pictorial Complaints Procedure that was more ‘service user friendly’. The procedure informed people how to make a complaint and when they would receive a response. The procedure did not give people details of the commissioning authority. There had been no complaints during the last 12 months. The home had a copy of policies, procedures and practice guidance for safeguarding adults. There was also a Whistle Blowing procedure in place, for the safety of service users. Staff told us, they had recently updated their training, for the protection of vulnerable adults. A member of staff said, s/he was aware of the guidelines and s/he had completed the training. We examined service user’s finances. There was an accurate record of all transactions, with receipts, and the home had a suitable lockable facility for monies that were held on behalf of service users. 2 Frederick Street DS0000000037.V356287.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 17 Environment The intended outcomes for Standards 24 – 30 are: 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. Service users live in a homely, comfortable and safe environment. Service users’ bedrooms suit their needs and lifestyles. Service users’ bedrooms promote their independence. Service users’ toilets and bathrooms provide sufficient privacy and meet their individual needs. Shared spaces complement and supplement service users’ individual rooms. Service users have the specialist equipment they require to maximise their independence. The home is clean and hygienic. The Commission considers Standards 24, and 30 the key standards to be inspected. JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for the following standard(s): People who use the service experience good quality outcomes in this area. Standards: 24 & 30 The home environment is homely, comfortable and safe. Repairs and maintenance is carried out and the home is clean, tidy and free from offensive odours. We have made this judgement using a range of evidence, including a visit to the service. EVIDENCE: Service users lived in a very homely environment. Bedrooms and communal areas had displays of service user’s craftwork. The lounges had comfortable furniture and the general appearance of the home was satisfactory. We saw that each service user’s bedroom had service user’s personal belongings and each room was differently furnished and decorated. The Annual Quality Assurance Assessment informed us, that service user’s likes and dislikes were considered whenever redecoration took place. The home’s development plan included: redecoration of some areas inside the home and replacement of some lounge furniture. Maintenance issues were recorded and work was speedily carried out. 2 Frederick Street DS0000000037.V356287.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 18 There was plenty of space for residents to move around inside the home. Service users were seen freely moving around all communal areas. There were well-maintained small gardens. The garden, at the back of the home, had an area for seating that was available to service users, to sit outside in warm weather. There was a shed that had been converted into a sensory room. The manager told us, there were plans to further develop the room, to make it more comfortable and accessible throughout the year. The home’s Environmental Report was good and fire safety measures were in place. The premise was clean, tidy and free from offensive odours. 2 Frederick Street DS0000000037.V356287.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 19 Staffing The intended outcomes for Standards 31 – 36 are: 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. Service users benefit from clarity of staff roles and responsibilities. Service users are supported by competent and qualified staff. Service users are supported by an effective staff team. Service users are supported and protected by the home’s recruitment policy and practices. Service users’ individual and joint needs are met by appropriately trained staff. Service users benefit from well supported and supervised staff. The Commission considers Standards 32, 34 and 35 the key standards to be inspected. JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for the following standard(s): People who use the service experience good quality outcomes in this area. Standards: 34, 35 & 36 Service users are protected and supported by the home’s recruitment procedures and staff are appropriately trained to care for the service users at the home. Staff benefit from regular one to one supervision and annual appraisals. We have made this judgement using a range of evidence, including a visit to the service. EVIDENCE: Staff files had records confirming that staff had completed the required induction and basic training. There was more than 63 of care staff who had achieved at least National Vocational Qualification at Level 2. The manager had made arrangements for staff to complete training for: fire drills, first aid, food hygiene, health and safety, infection control and manual handling. The record of fire safety needed to be improved, so that it could be more easily determined if all staff had completed fire training and drills. In surveys staff informed us, there were ‘good training opportunities’. Staff had completed extra training, so they had greater awareness and knowledge of resident’s specific needs. Staffing numbers were satisfactory. Service users benefited from the home having a staff group who worked well as a team. 2 Frederick Street DS0000000037.V356287.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 20 Service users were supported and protected by the home’s recruitment policy and procedures. The home had a record showing that satisfactory checks had been carried out before a new member of staff was employed at the home. The sample of staff records showed there had been regular one to one supervision and staff’s annual appraisals had taken place. The Annual Quality Assurance Assessment informed us, that service users were included with recruitment, National Vocational Qualification witnessing, training and appraisals. 2 Frederick Street DS0000000037.V356287.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 21 Conduct and Management of the Home The intended outcomes for Standards 37 – 43 are: 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. Service users benefit from a well run home. Service users benefit from the ethos, leadership and management approach of the home. Service users are confident their views underpin all self-monitoring, review and development by the home. Service users’ rights and best interests are safeguarded by the home’s policies and procedures. 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 are promoted and protected. Service users benefit from competent and accountable management of the service. The Commission considers Standards 37, 39, and 42 the key standards to be inspected. JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for the following standard(s): People who use the service experience good quality outcomes in this area. Standards: 37, 39 & 42 Service users benefit from a well run home and they are included with developments and changes that take place. The health, safety and welfare of service users and staff are promoted and protected. We have made this judgement using a range of evidence, including a visit to the service. EVIDENCE: The home’s manager had three years experience as a deputy manager before becoming the manager of the home, almost a year ago. She had gained a National Vocational Qualification at Level 3, in care. The manager had registered for the Registered Manager’s Award, in order for her to have training for a management qualification. In a survey, a member of staff told us, ‘There is very good support from the manager’’. A member of staff we spoke with said, “Staff were always well supported by the manager”. 2 Frederick Street DS0000000037.V356287.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 22 The home had not yet achieved in developing a quality assurance system that would include gaining views from: service users and their relatives, social and health care professionals, advocates and other interested parties. There were regular service user and staff meetings. The meetings were an opportunity for people to comment on the running of the home. The home had carried out regular monitoring checks and audits of the service. A number of health and safety records were examined for: fire, portable appliance tests, water temperatures and accidents. There was also documentation and a record of checks for the car. All records confirmed there were regular checks and health and safety work was carried out. 2 Frederick Street DS0000000037.V356287.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 Adults 18-65 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 X 2 3 3 X 4 X 5 X INDIVIDUAL NEEDS AND CHOICES Standard No 6 7 8 9 10 Score CONCERNS AND COMPLAINTS Standard No Score 22 3 23 3 ENVIRONMENT Standard No Score 24 3 25 X 26 X 27 X 28 X 29 X 30 3 STAFFING Standard No Score 31 X 32 X 33 X 34 3 35 3 36 3 CONDUCT AND MANAGEMENT OF THE HOME Standard No 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 Score 2 3 X 3 X LIFESTYLES Standard No Score 11 X 12 3 13 3 14 X 15 3 16 3 17 3 PERSONAL AND HEALTHCARE SUPPORT Standard No 18 19 20 21 Score 3 3 3 X 3 X 2 X X 3 X 2 Frederick Street DS0000000037.V356287.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 24 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 YA6 Regulation 15 Requirement Care Plans must be updated after reviews take place, so that records are kept up to date. Alterations to Care Plans must be signed and dated. The home must keep a record of all food provided for service users, so that it can be determined service users have a varied and healthy diet. The Registered Manager must ensure that service users and other stakeholders views, on the running of the service, are gathered and collated in a report that is available for others to read. Timescale for action 16/01/08 2. YA17 17 16/01/08 3. YA39 24 30/06/08 2 Frederick Street DS0000000037.V356287.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 25 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 YA19 YA22 Good Practice Recommendations Healthcare records should be kept in an orderly date sequence, to show the regularity of healthcare appointments. The Registered Manager should ensure that the Complaints Procedure includes details of the relevant local funding authority. 2 Frederick Street DS0000000037.V356287.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 26 Commission for Social Care Inspection Darlington Area Office No. 1 Hopetown Studios Brinkburn Road Darlington DL3 6DS 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 2 Frederick Street DS0000000037.V356287.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 27 - Please note that this information is included on www.bestcarehome.co.uk under license from the regulator. Re-publishing this information is in breach of the terms of use of that website. Discrete codes and changes have been inserted throughout the textual data shown on the site that will provide incontrovertable proof of copying in the event this information is re-published on other websites. The policy of www.bestcarehome.co.uk is to use all legal avenues to pursue such offenders, including recovery of costs. You have been warned!