Care Home: Albert House

Similar services:

• Chirnside House
• Keer Sands Residential Home
• Ruskin Lodge
• Bushell House
• Langrigg House
• Parkside
• Dystlegh Grange
• Thornton Lodge

What the care home does well What has improved since the last inspection? The garden area had been improved to provide more suitable outdoor space for residents. Residents had been assessed using a suitable system to ensure the care home provided suitable accommodation and care. Plans of care had been devised and developed with residents or their families to ensure care was delivered as expected. Risk assessments for tissue viability, Falls and nutrition had been undertaken and reviewed to meet each residents health care needs. Leisure activities were provided in a more substantive and thoughtful way to keep residents stimulated. Medication policies and procedures had been reviewed. Staff who administered medication had been appropriately trained. Medication administration was safer and protected residents from possible harm. Supervision and appraisal of staff was ongoing. Meetings were held regularly with staff. The open management structure allowed staff to function better and increased their motivation to provide a better service to residents. CARE HOMES FOR OLDER PEOPLE Albert House 22 Albert Road Colne Lancashire BB8 0AA Lead Inspector Mr Graham Oldham Unannounced Inspection 4th June 2008 09:30 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 Albert House DS0000061635.V362577.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. Albert House DS0000061635.V362577.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 3 SERVICE INFORMATION Name of service Albert House Address 22 Albert Road Colne Lancashire BB8 0AA 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) 01282 862053 michael@alberthousenorthwest.co.uk Albert House Residential Home Ltd Michael James Smalley Care Home 17 Category(ies) of Dementia - over 65 years of age (3), Old age, registration, with number not falling within any other category (14) of places Albert House DS0000061635.V362577.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 4 SERVICE INFORMATION Conditions of registration: 1. 2. Within the overall total of 17, a maximum 14 service users may be accommodated requiring personal care who fall into the category of OP (either sex) Within the overall total of 17, a maximum of 3 (named) service users may be accommodated requiring personal care who falls into the category of DE(E) Date of last inspection Brief Description of the Service: Albert House is a residential care home providing 24-hour accommodation and personal care to 15 older persons and two (named) older persons who have a dementia. The registered provider Mr Perris is also the manager. Albert House is an extended detached house located on the main road in Colne town centre, within easy reach of shops, library, market and other amenities. There are two ground floor lounges (one with adjoining dining room accessed by two steps) and a separate dining room (adjoining the kitchen), which is the designated smoking area. There is one double bedroom with en-suite and 15 single bedrooms on the ground and first floors. A passenger lift gives access to the upstairs and mobility adaptations such as handrails and disabled toilet facilities. There is limited on-street parking at the side of the home and across the main road with a public car park a short walk away. There is limited parking in the garden courtyard at the rear of the home. There is a small garden area for residents to enjoy. A statement of purpose and service users guide are available for residents or their families to be informed of the facilities and services the home provides. The fees for Albert House range from £346 to £390 per week. This does not include hairdressing, newspapers or magazines and toiletries. Albert House DS0000061635.V362577.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 are experiencing good quality outcomes. This unannounced key inspection, which included a visit to the service, took place on the 4th June 2007. Much of the information gained was obtained from talking to residents and staff members. The views of residents were obtained on a variety of topics. Two residents were case tracked. Case tracking gave the inspector an overall view of the specific care for the individual resident by checking the plans of care, other documentation and talking to residents and staff. Two staff members were questioned about the care needs of the resident’s case tracked. Some of the views have been reported collectively with specific comments contained within the body of the report. The inspector took detailed notes during the inspection, which have been retained as evidence. Staff were directly and indirectly observed carrying out their tasks and interacting with residents. Paperwork examined included plans of care, assessment documentation, policies and procedures or documents relevant to each standard. A tour of the building was conducted. Three staff members returned survey forms to the CSCI All three were always kept informed about the needs of residents. One said, “I am always given up to date information about the needs of our service users. I always refer to our care plans, checking them and revising them – usually every week. If I do not understand something I ask the manager or senior staff who are always polite to answer my questions.” All three thought the recruitment process was robust. One said,” My employer carried out checks before I started working for him. He asked me to fill in a CRB form. My employer also obtained two references from my previous employers.” All three thought the induction process covered all topics very well. Albert House DS0000061635.V362577.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 6 All three thought training was relevant to the role, helped understand the diversity of residents and kept them up to date. One said, “My manager organised for the staff to do NVQ level 3 in Health and Social Care, so we are doing this course which is absolutely relevant to our role. This fully helps us to understand and meet the individual needs of the service users in our workplace. This also keeps us up to date with the new ways of working and I believe it covers everything in great detail.” All three thought support was regular. One said,” My manager constantly organises individual meetings and meetings with the whole staff group as well to discuss how well we are performing and stimulates us to do better. He also gives us the much needed support in the workplace all the time.” All three knew how to make a complaint. One said,” If a relative/service user/advocate or friend had concerns about the home I will report them first to my manager. If things do not improve I will report these concerns to the Commission for Social Care Inspection (CSCI).” All three thought information about residents was always passed to the staff team as a whole. All three always thought there was always enough staff. All three thought support was always enough to meet the diverse needs of residents. One said, “ I definitely have the support, experience and knowledge to meet the different needs of residents. I always try my best to give the best service to our residents and I always try to be really helpful to everybody in the home. I always get the right support from management and senior care staff. “ All three thought the home did well. 1. “Our target is to be the best residential home in the East Lancashire area and I strongly believe we can achieve this quite soon. Finally and most importantly I think we always have to maintain this high quality of service and care to our residents. “ 2. “ We have an excellent team of staff who all work well together as a team and provide a friendly and relaxed atmosphere for the residents in our home. “ 3. “The home provides an excellent service to our service users. Staff interact with service users very well and make them feel at home. The residents enjoy good food, are given choices and a good balanced diet. “ Albert House DS0000061635.V362577.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 7 One staff member thought the home could improve by creating a web page with the company logo so many people in Great Britain and the world can see the high quality of service and care we provide to our residents. The very positive responses from staff members demonstrated a motivated staff team and a supportive management team. One relative returned a survey form to the CSCI. The relative thought information was usually sufficient to make informed decisions about their family member. The relative thought the needs of their relative was always met. The relative thought she was always kept on touch with their relatives. The relative thought she was kept up to date with important issues. The relative thought the care and support given to residents was always enough. The relative thought staff always had the skills and experience to meet the needs of residents. The relative thought the diverse needs of residents was always met. The relative knew how to make a complaint and thought the care service would respond appropriately. The relative said she did not have a complaint. The relative thought the care service always supported people to live the life they chose and said my mother has settled down so well and when I leave her I know she is safe and happy. Mum has her nails done and staff take her for a little walk to the shops or on outings. Music is very important to my mum and her being met with this too. The relative thought the home did well by always smelling and looking nice and you always get a warm welcome from staff is always given to us. Mum is always clean and tidy ( happy). The food is wonderful and there is a nice atmosphere in the home. My mums needs are always treated as if she were the only one. Mums room is always clean and tidy and staff are wonderful. The relative commented further by saying I would like to add that the love and care my mother gets from the staff is more than I could ever have hoped for. We now feel that Albert House is part of our family. We as a family are made so welcome at any time of the day or night. The survey form demonstrated that this relative was extremely pleased with the care and facilities at Albert House. Albert House DS0000061635.V362577.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 8 What the service does well: Plans of care were developed with the aid of families and residents to provide staff with sufficient knowledge to help meet the needs of residents accommodated at the care service. Residents had access to specialists to ensure their health care needs were met. Resident’s case “They treat me care in a very possible were contentment. tracked said, “They treat me with privacy and dignity” and with privacy and dignity. They are very kind. They give me nice way”. Privacy, dignity and as much independence as viewed as important and helped maximise residents Resident’s case tracked said, “I live in Colne and my friends father found it satisfactory and so I asked to come here” and “I had been here before after an accident so knew I liked it”. Paperwork supplied and information gained prior to admission ensured residents and their families were suitably placed. Resident’s case tracked said, “I feel safe here” and “I have been here before when I got knocked down. I have gone through hell in the last few years. I was burgled two weeks ago and they through me on the floor. I am safe now – I like it here”. No adult abuse issues had been raised since the care home opened. Policies, procedures and staff training provided a framework to safeguard vulnerable adults. The care home was warm, clean, tidy and free from offensive odours. The suitable equipment was domestic in character and helped provide a homely atmosphere. Resident’s case tracked said, “The food is excellent” and “The food is very good”. Food served at the home was tasteful and met residents nutritional needs. Resident’s case tracked said, “Sometimes they mention care – they are very good. I think the staff are nice – I really do – they look after you well” and “They are looking after me – I have no complaints at all, I love it. The boss says I can stay as long as I need to”. Other residents who were able to comment said they were happy or well and were satisfied with the care they received. The professional attitude of staff ensured residents were satisfied with the care they received. Health and safety policies, procedures and maintenance of equipment helped protect the welfare of residents and staff. Albert House DS0000061635.V362577.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 9 Two staff were interviewed during the inspection and said: • “I have had a suitable induction and feel supported. I am happy working here. I think this is a very nice home. It is more like a home from home rather than regimented. There is a good staff team so it provides a happy atmosphere for the residents” “I think it is going well now and we are learning a lot more. It is not as stressful. It is good with the manager because he involves us with everything. If I think something is wrong I can give my viewpoint. At seniors meetings we go through everything and we can all put in our ideas. We have a good team and get on well. I definitely feel supported. We are doing much more activities and we have planned many more activities. More residents are joining in now because we are putting activities in a more positive way. More people are going out because we have the transport and some go for a walk in the garden” • Staff were motivated and well supported by the management team for the benefit of residents. Resident’s case tracked said, “I get visitors and had one today. I have some good friends. I am very pleased. We are always asked if we want a cup of tea” and “My nephew comes often. They treat him nicely. First thing they say is do you want a drink”. Visiting was open to encourage the social inclusion of residents. Resident’s case tracked said, “Someone would listen to me if I had a complaint” and “I cannot grumble”. The open and inclusive atmosphere at the home allowed residents to feel comfortable to voice their concerns. Resident’s case tracked said, “I like my room – it is small but comfortable and I am happy. If I need help in the night I get it. I have some of my own things here” and “I have a nice room. I cannot complain about anything. I have people to talk to here. I will bring some of my own things then”. The private space of residents was comfortable and met residents expectations. Resident’s case tracked said, “I am happy here. It’s the next best step to your own home” and “The staff are very good – lovely cannot be faulted”. A professional visitor said, ““This is one of the better homes I go to. Staff are motivated. I have never met a bunch of staff who want to learn as much and there is a good atmosphere”. The facilities and services of the home and motivation of staff and management provided a caring living for residents. Albert House DS0000061635.V362577.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 10 What has improved since the last inspection? What they could do better: The registered manager must ensure the hot water outlets resident’s use must not pose a threat of scalding. Any baths must have a suitable appliance fitted to reduce the temperature to protect the health and welfare of residents. Other hot water outlets such as sinks should be risk assessed to determine the threat they pose to residents. Where a threat is highlighted a suitable device to reduce the hot water temperature must be fitted. The registered manager should undertake regular checks to ensure hot water outlets do not pose a threat to the health and safety of residents. The registered manager requirements of the CSCI. should complete NVQ training to meet the The registered manager should ensure the details of a resident’s care needs are fully explained for staff to follow and give effective care. A summary of the satisfaction questionnaires should be provided to interested parties to demonstrate a responsive service. Albert House DS0000061635.V362577.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 11 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. Albert House DS0000061635.V362577.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 12 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 Albert House DS0000061635.V362577.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 13 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): OP3 Quality in this outcome area is good. This judgement has been made using available evidence including a visit to this service. The thorough assessment process ensured staff had sufficient information to be able to meet the needs of residents. EVIDENCE: The care service did not provide intermediate care. Two residents were involved in the case tracking process. Social services or the local Primary Care Trust had provided assessment documentation. A suitable staff member completed an assessment of each individual. The documentation of the two residents case tracked was up to date and fully completed. Each residents needs were assessed prior to admission and staff were able to develop plans of care from the information gained. Albert House DS0000061635.V362577.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 14 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): OP7, OP8, OP9 and OP10 Quality in this outcome area is good. This judgement has been made using available evidence including a visit to this service. Plans of care had been developed and reviewed to ensure staff were up to date with each residents health and social care needs. Residents had access to specialists to meet their health care needs. Policies, procedures and safe administration of medication protected the health and welfare of residents. Residents were treated with respect and dignity to ensure they were comfortable with the personal care they received. EVIDENCE: Two residents were involved in the case tracking process. This involved examining the plans of care, talking to residents and discussing care issues with two staff members. Care was delivered by staff, written accurately in the plans and met the expectations of residents. Plans of care had been developed with residents or their families. Plans of care had been reviewed on a monthly basis. A record of a resident’s last wishes was contained within the plans of care. Plans of care enabled staff to care for the holistic needs of residents. Albert House DS0000061635.V362577.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 15 Two residents case tracked had their needs risk assessed. This included an assessment for pressure area care, nutritional needs and moving and handling needs, including a falls risk assessment. Equipment was provided for residents where a risk was demonstrated such as pressure relieving mattresses or frames and wheelchairs. Outpatient and other appointments were recorded within the plans of care. Residents had access to specialists to receive up to date care or advice. Policies and procedures for the administration of medication had been reviewed in line with the Royal Pharmaceutical Societies guidelines. Medication records were up to date and contained no unexplained gaps. Staff had access to current medication publications and their local pharmacist to gain advice. There was a safe system for the ordering, administration and disposal of medication. There was a Controlled Drug register and appropriate cupboard. There was a fridge for the storage of medication. The temperature of the fridge was recorded. There was a signature list for all staff who administered medicine. The safe administration of medication helped protect the health and welfare of residents. Resident’s case tracked were satisfied their care was given in a private manner. Residents were indirectly observed to be treated with privacy and dignity. All doors had a lockable facility and staff were instructed to keep doors closed when giving personal care. During the case tracking process staff described the way they encouraged some independence for the benefit of residents. Albert House DS0000061635.V362577.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 16 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): OP12, OP13, Op14 and OP15 Quality in this outcome area is good. This judgement has been made using available evidence including a visit to this service. Leisure activities provided were suitable to resident’s tastes and helped provide a fulfilling life. Visiting was open and unrestrictive to encourage socialising with family and friends. Residents were able to exercise choice to retain some independent living. The food served at the home met residents nutritional needs. EVIDENCE: Meals provided were hot, nutritious and tasteful. Residents who required assistance were observed to be fed in a discreet and individual manner. There was a choice of meal. The cook said she observed what residents were eating and adjusted the menu to follow tastes. “we provide food like curries and lasagne but not all residents like it so we provide something else”. The cook carried out necessary environmental health checks. Special diets were catered for. The food served at the home was suitable to resident’s tastes. Albert House DS0000061635.V362577.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 17 Leisure activities were provided in a much more structured way than at past inspections. This included outings in the newly acquired people carrier. Residents listened to music, played games, read and watched television on the day of the inspection. One resident was observed walking in the garden accompanied by a staff member. The list of activities was provided on the notice board and pictures had been taken of events. Leisure activities provided stimulation and interest for residents. Visiting was unrestricted and allowed residents social contact with family and friends. Choices residents could make within the routine was described in the plans of care and gave a good account of what people wanted and their preferences. There was a document detailing their life and preferences. Staff were indirectly observed offering residents choice at meal times or attending bingo. Choices within the routine gave residents some independence. Albert House DS0000061635.V362577.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 18 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): OP16 and OP18 Quality in this outcome area is good. This judgement has been made using available evidence including a visit to this service. Residents or their families were aware of their right to complain and confident to approach management with any concerns. Robust policies, procedures and staff training protected residents from possible abuse. EVIDENCE: Staff interviewed were aware of the complaints procedure. The complaints procedure was easily accessible, met current timescales and gave residents the option to contact the CSCI. There have not been any complaints made to the CSCI since the last key inspection but the manager said he had dealt with some minor issues before they became a complaint and believed being available to talk to residents or their families reduced the need for formal complaints. Staff interviewed had been trained in the protection of vulnerable adults and were aware of the whistle blowing policy. There were available copies of the policies and procedures for protection of adults. The home used the Lancashire Local authority policies to follow a local initiative. There was a copy of the ‘No Secrets’ document to advise staff on adult protection issues. Resident’s case tracked felt safe and protected from abuse. Albert House DS0000061635.V362577.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 19 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): OP19 – OP26 Quality in this outcome area is good. This judgement has been made using available evidence including a visit to this service. Residents lived in a clean, tidy and safe environment. Fixtures, fittings and furnishings were domestic in character and provided a homely atmosphere. The services and facilities provided a comfortable setting and met resident’s environmental needs. EVIDENCE: A tour of the building was conducted on the day of the inspection. The home was observed to be warm, clean and tidy with no offensive odours. All areas of the home remain well decorated. There was a plan of routine maintenance. The garden had been improved to allow residents to enjoy good weather outdoors. Albert House DS0000061635.V362577.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 20 Communal space was modern and suitable to the needs of residents. There were two lounges. The two dining rooms contained sufficient furniture. Outdoor space was accessible. Lighting was domestic in character and sufficient for residents to be able to read or attend leisure activities. There were good areas of natural lighting. Furnishings were domestic in character and met resident’s needs. Baths had equipment to treat disabled residents. Toilets were near to communal areas. Disability equipment was sited in key areas to assist residents maintain independence. There was a good level of equipment observed in each room. Doors were lockable, windows were restricted and radiators guarded. However, on testing the water supply one sink and one bath tested was much too hot. Not all water outlets were tested. All rooms were carpeted or had laminate flooring. Some rooms had a lockable space and the manager said more would be provided to help secure residents personal belongings. Rooms had been personalised to resident’s tastes. All rooms had natural lighting. Rooms were centrally heated. Emergency lighting was provided and maintained throughout the home. In general the home had been upgraded to provide better facilities and services for residents. The laundry is sited well away from food preparation areas and walls and floor can easily be cleaned. There were washing and drying facilities with machines that reach current specifications. Infection control policies, procedures and staff training helped protect the health and welfare of staff and residents. Albert House DS0000061635.V362577.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 21 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): OP27, OP28, OP29 and OP30 Quality in this outcome area is good. This judgement has been made using available evidence including a visit to this service. Robust recruitment procedures protected residents from possible abuse. Resident’s needs were met by the numbers and skill mix of a well-trained staff group. Induction and foundation training was undertaken in a professional manner to ensure staff are competent to meet the needs of residents. EVIDENCE: Two staff files were examined during the inspection. All necessary documentation and checks had been obtained for the employment of staff to help protect the health and welfare of residents. The staffing rota demonstrated sufficient numbers of well-trained staff were on duty throughout the day. Staff received training in many aspects of caring for the resident group accommodated at the home. Over 50 of staff had attained NVQ qualifications and some were going forward by taking NVQ3 and 4 in health care. Supervision was being carried out regularly. Completed induction and foundation training was observed in staff files. Staff questioned said they were receiving good training. Training given at this care home was increasing staff members confidence in meeting the residents needs. Albert House DS0000061635.V362577.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 22 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): OP31, OP33, OP35 and OP38 Quality in this outcome area is good. This judgement has been made using available evidence including a visit to this service. Residents and staff benefited from the open and transparent leadership of management. Quality assurance systems allowed management to react to the views of residents, staff and stakeholders. Policies, procedures, the maintenance of equipment and staff training helped protect the health and safety of staff and residents. EVIDENCE: There were health and safety policies and procedures. Health and safety legislation was available at the home for staff to access. Staff were trained in health and safety, fire awareness, first aid, moving and handling, food hygiene and infection control. All electrical and gas appliances and installation had been maintained. Fire tests and drills had been carried out. Accidents were recorded. Albert House DS0000061635.V362577.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 23 Health and safety policies, procedures and staff training helped protect the health and welfare of staff and residents. The registered manager said they did not handle any resident’s monies but could provide money if a resident needed some and would reclaim this from family members responsible for finances. The registered manager held regular recorded meetings with staff and residents. There was a business plan and the home had gained IIP recognition. Quality assurance surveys had been undertaken and were available for interested parties to view. No summary was produced to inform the Commission of the outcome of the surveys. The registered manager was enrolled upon the Registered Managers Award and hoped to complete this by the end of the year to meet current requirements. Staff and residents were very satisfied with the open and transparent way the home was now being run and felt they contributed to the homes success. Albert House DS0000061635.V362577.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 24 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 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 3 3 3 3 3 2 3 STAFFING Standard No Score 27 3 28 4 29 3 30 3 MANAGEMENT AND ADMINISTRATION Standard No 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 Score 2 X 2 X 3 X X 3 Albert House DS0000061635.V362577.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 25 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 OP25 Regulation 12(1)(a) Timescale for action The registered manager must 31/07/08 promote and make proper provision for the health and safety of residents. Any bath found to be a risk should have a suitable device fitted or maintained. Requirement 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 OP7 Good Practice Recommendations The registered manager should ensure all the details contained within the plans of care fully explain to staff the details they need to deliver effective care to residents. The registered manager should ensure any hot water outlets residents use are risk assessed. Where a risk is identified a suitable device should be fitted. OP25 Albert House DS0000061635.V362577.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 26 3. 4. 5. OP25 OP31 OP33 The registered manager should undertake regular checks on hot water outlets to ensure they do not pose a threat to the safety of residents. The registered manager should complete the NVQ training to comply with current standards. The registered manager should provide a summary of the quality assurance questionnaires to provide to interested parties and demonstrate a responsive service. Albert House DS0000061635.V362577.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 27 Commission for Social Care Inspection North West Regional Contact Team Unit 1, 3rd Floor Tustin Court Portway Preston PR2 2YQ 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 Albert House DS0000061635.V362577.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 28 - 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!