Care Home: Charles Curran House

Similar services:

• Ashlong House
• Norbury Crescent (30)
• Edenvale
• Wadham Avenue
• Chatsworth Care - Dawson House
• Cowden Road, 52 - 54
• Chatsworth Care - Tudor Lodge
• Foxley Lane (121a)

What the care home does well The care needs of prospective residents are fully assessed before they move in. Comprehensive care plans, Person-Centred Plans and risk assessments are all undertaken on every resident, and are kept under review. There is a high level of personal care provided and residents are encouraged to be as independent as possible. Very good use is made of day centres. Medication is properly stored and its administration is properly recorded. The home is reasonably clean, and adequately decorated, furnished and equipped. The permanent staff are very well trained and supervised. The home is well managed and quality assurance and health and safety issues receive good attention. What has improved since the last inspection? Certain bedrooms, and the lounge of Fernside unit, have been redecorated. Some new soft furnishings and wide screen televisions have been purchased. A hoist has been purchased that also acts as weighing scales. Recycling of waste materials takes place. Additional documents are now in picture format for the benefit of residents. What the care home could do better: The information for prospective residents and their relatives about services available at the care home, and how to complain, is not sufficiently up to date. It is recommended that care plans are signed by the link worker and team leader, together with resident, family member, friend or advocate as feasible in order to demonstrate that consultation has taken place. It is recommended that a greater emphasis should be placed on early consultation with new residents and their supporters to determine residents` likes and dislikes, and the findings should be recorded in the Person Centred Plan as a priority. It is recommended that the home should have a policy that the weight of all residents is normally taken and recorded on a monthly basis as a means of monitoring their health. Damaged items of furniture and equipment, such as drawers and cupboard doors in the kitchen units, must be replaced and soiled carpets must be cleaned or replaced in order to make the home a more attractive place to live. In order to assist in infection control, the hot water supplied to residents for washing purposes should be 42 degrees Centigrade plus or minus 2 degrees. CARE HOME ADULTS 18-65 Charles Curran House 36 Boniface Road Ickenham Middlesex UB10 8BU Lead Inspector Robert Bond Key Unannounced Inspection 12th and 27th August 2008 10:00 Charles Curran House DS0000032472.V367922.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 Charles Curran House DS0000032472.V367922.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. Charles Curran House DS0000032472.V367922.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 3 SERVICE INFORMATION Name of service Charles Curran House Address 36 Boniface Road Ickenham Middlesex UB10 8BU 01895 674 935 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) hmatthews@hillingdon.gov.uk London Borough of Hillingdon vacant Care Home 22 Category(ies) of Learning disability (22) registration, with number of places Charles Curran House DS0000032472.V367922.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 categories: 2. Learning disability - Code LD The maximum number of service users who can be accommodated is: 22 15th February 2007 Date of last inspection Brief Description of the Service: Charles Curran House is a purpose built two storey care home for adults with profound learning disabilities, operated by Hillingdon Council and opened in 1981. It is located at the end of a cul-de-sac, very close to the centre of Ickenham village and hence close to all local facilities and public transport. The home is divided into four units and can accommodate 22 permanent residents of either sex who have usually a mixture of learning and physical disability and sensory impairment. All residents attend day centres up to five days per week and the home has the use of three vehicles to take them out. Weekly fees are up to £845.48. Charles Curran House DS0000032472.V367922.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 that people who use the service experience good quality outcomes. This inspection was a key inspection that assessed the home’s performance against the key National Minimum Standards (NMS) for younger adults as published by the Department of Health. The Registered Manager of the home has left and a new one has been appointed but has not yet returned to Charles Curran House from her current temporary position. In the meantime, the home has an Acting Manager, but she was on leave during the first day of the inspection. We were therefore assisted during our initial inspection by a Team Leader and by the home’s Administrative Assistant. We subsequently visited the home for a second time in order to meet the Acting Manager and complete our inspection. The Acting Manager is referred to as The Manager in this report. The Acting Manager submitted in advance of the inspection a completed Annual Quality Assurance Assessment (AQAA). We also had completed survey questionnaires from relatives dating from the Annual Service Review we conducted in March 2008. Our inspection included meeting residents and staff, touring the building, and examining a variety of records and files. We spent approximately six hours at the home in total. Throughout our inspection we considered equality and diversity issues and we noted that assessments of need included religious and cultural needs. The home is fully occupied, having 22 residents. However there remains a high dependency upon temporary, mostly agency, staff. This situation is about to improve as some permanent staff will be transferring from another home, and other new staff members are going through recruitment checks at present. We assessed the home’s performance against 23 of the NMS, and found that 18 anticipated outcomes were fully met, and 1 was exceeded, but 4 outcomes were not fully met. This led to us making 4 requirements and 3 recommendations. What the service does well: The care needs of prospective residents are fully assessed before they move in. Comprehensive care plans, Person-Centred Plans and risk assessments are all undertaken on every resident, and are kept under review. There is a high level of personal care provided and residents are encouraged to be as independent as possible. Very good use is made of day centres. Medication is properly stored and its administration is properly recorded. The home is Charles Curran House DS0000032472.V367922.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 6 reasonably clean, and adequately decorated, furnished and equipped. The permanent staff are very well trained and supervised. The home is well managed and quality assurance and health and safety issues receive good attention. 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 Charles Curran House DS0000032472.V367922.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 7 contacting your local CSCI office. The summary of this inspection report can be made available in other formats on request. Charles Curran House DS0000032472.V367922.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 8 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 Charles Curran House DS0000032472.V367922.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 9 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): 1 and 2. Quality in this outcome area is adequate. This judgement has been made using available evidence including a visit to this service. The home does not have up to date and accurate information leaflets to provide to prospective residents and their relatives, however the care needs of prospective residents are fully assessed. EVIDENCE: We noted that the home’s Statement of Purpose refers to a manager who has now left the home, the Service Users’ Guide calls the care home a hostel and refers to the NCSC as opposed to the CSCI, and the ‘Welcome to Charles Curran House’ leaflet that mentions the London Borough of Hillingdon’s Registration and Inspection Unit that no longer exists. We examined the assessment papers of the most recent resident to move into the home. A comprehensive assessment had been completed by a London Borough of Hillingdon social worker in advance of the resident moving in. The home had subsequently completed a service user plan based on this assessment. Charles Curran House DS0000032472.V367922.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): 6, 7 and 9. Quality in this outcome area is good. This judgement has been made using available evidence including a visit to this service. Care plans are quite good but residents and their supporters do not appear to be always sufficiently consulted about the contents of the care plans. Person Centre Plans are sometimes very good, but are sometimes under-developed. EVIDENCE: We examined in detail two care plans. Both plans had been completed by link workers and they contained details about personal care needs and how to meet them. The care plans had not been signed by anyone however. NMS 6.6 requires that the resident, family, friends or advocate should be involved in drawing up the care plan but there was no evidence of this process having taken place. The Manager subsequently informed us that care plan forms had now been redesigned so that a space for signatures was included on them. The Team Leader reported that formal reviews are undertaken annually and that there were special reasons why the review had not yet been arranged in the case of a resident who was offered a place one year before. Here, a placement review was undertaken in November 2007 but NMS 6.10 requires reviews to take place every six months at least, involving the resident, significant professionals, family, friends or advocate. The ‘review system’ Charles Curran House DS0000032472.V367922.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 11 described by the Team Leader is that each unit of the home holds a team meeting every 6 weeks at which potential changes to care plans are discussed. In addition, each link worker writes a three monthly report on each resident for the Team Leader to read, and an annual review report is written that is read by the home’s manager and that forms the basis for the multi-disciplinary annual review. In terms of NMS 7, decision making, as indicated above there was a lack of information on file to evidence that sufficient consultation had taken place to determine and record the views of the resident, family member, friends or advocates. We did not see on the care file any evidence of choices being offered to the resident, and decisions made. The Person Centred Plan (PCP) is the likely place for such matters but this resident’s PCP was in rudimentary form only despite the length of time that the resident had been in the home. The Manager subsequently explained to us the particular reasons why this was so. However in the other case examined, a very full and well produced PCP was seen. We were told that only one resident had an advocate (MENCAP advisor). In terms of NMS9, risk-taking, we saw completed generic risk assessments, and specific risk assessments that related to individual residents. Those examined in detail covered ‘fire evacuation’, ‘bed-rails’ and a handling assessment. The ethos of the home is to promote independence and to encourage moves to supported living where feasible. Charles Curran House DS0000032472.V367922.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): 12, 13, 15, 16 and 17. Quality in this outcome area is good. This judgement has been made using available evidence including a visit to this service. Residents frequently attend day centres and are offered some other activities. Community and family links are promoted and a sufficiently healthy diet is provided. EVIDENCE: Each resident has a printed activity timetable in picture format displayed within their bedroom. The timetable demonstrates which days they are remain at home and which days they go to day centres. Many residents attend day centres 4 days of the week, and one resident attends five days. On the day we inspected, three residents had remained at home because of upset stomachs. At 11.00 a.m. these residents appeared to be still waiting for their bus to arrive. No alternative stimulation was being made available to them. However the Manager subsequently reported to us that they ate a fish and chips lunch and watched a dvd in the afternoon. At the time of the last CSCI inspection, some residents went to Berkshire College to learn cookery, art and craft. The Team Leader reported that the Charles Curran House DS0000032472.V367922.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 13 college had issued each student with a certificate, but that the lessons had now ceased. Previously, some residents went on an escorted holiday, but the Team Leader said this was no longer possible due to problems with staff overtime. Activities that the Team Leader did mention were birthday celebrations and other parties, picnics in the garden, day trips to Thorpe Park or the seaside, and a visit to the home by a theatre group. Some relatives are involved with the home, and some residents go home for weekends. The home does not employ a cook as meals are cooked on each unit by the support staff. The system seems to work quite well, and allows flexibility and choice of meals. The menu is in picture format to aid residents’ understanding. Charles Curran House DS0000032472.V367922.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): 18, 19 and 20. Quality in this outcome area is good. This judgement has been made using available evidence including a visit to this service. Residents’ personal care needs are met, and residents are well protected by the home’s policy and procedures concerning medication but weight records are not taken sufficiently frequently as a way of monitoring health. EVIDENCE: The care plans we examined contained sufficient detail on how personal care should be met. Most residents also have a well detailed Person Centre Plan in place. Health Action Plans are in place. We examined in depth one such plan and found that this document had been signed by key personnel from the home and that it detailed medication needs, the input from health professionals, and any health issues arising. However, we could not understand the meaning of some of the recording without interpretation by the Team Leader. The Manager subsequently reported that two staff had been allocated places on a report writing training course. The file also contained a weight record but the resident’s weight had only been recorded twice in one year. We checked another care file and found the weight recording to be been undertaken only 3 times in 7 months. The Team Leader was not aware of any policy on this issue but the norm elsewhere is that all Charles Curran House DS0000032472.V367922.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 15 residents’ weights are taken and recorded monthly. The Team Leader said this would now be easier to achieve as the home had purchased a hoist that has a built in weighing machine. We examined the medication storage arrangements and medication administration records in one of the home’s units. Everything was in good order. None of the residents are able to look after their own medication. Charles Curran House DS0000032472.V367922.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): 22 and 23. Quality in this outcome area is good. This judgement has been made using available evidence including a visit to this service. Residents and their relatives can be confident that any complaint or allegation will be fully investigated, and that staff have been fully trained in the protection of vulnerable adults. EVIDENCE: The AQAA document completed by the home in advance of the inspection made reference to the home having received one complaint and having made one safeguarding adults referral in the last 12 months. The Manager explained that the complaint was in fact as example of whistleblowing concerning alleged bad practice by an agency member of staff. The allegation had been referred to us in a Regulation 37 notice, and had been fully investigated by the then Registered Manager, and a copy of her report had been kept. The Regulation 37 notice said that the matter had been referred for a Safeguarding Adults strategy meeting but no notes of this meeting could be located within the care home. The home has the London Borough of Hillingdon’s Safeguarding Adults policy and procedure in place. Records we saw show that staff have been trained in understanding and applying the policy. The following paragraph has been copied from the ANNUAL SERVICE REPORT on Charles Curran House that we compiled on 12th February 2008. No complaints were made to us by residents or their relatives during the last year. The surveys returned to us by relatives of residents demonstrated a high Charles Curran House DS0000032472.V367922.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 17 level of satisfaction. Typical comments included, “The staff look after the people in their care very well. They are always well feed, well dressed and loved.” “I am very happy with the standard of care and approachability of all the staff.” “I feel the home is excellent in contacting me with any concerns”. In terms of how the home could improve further, the following comments were made, “More activities away from the home at weekends”, “Using less agency staff- some are not there long enough to understand (my relative’s) complex needs and personality.” The only two adverse comments were as follows, “I am told there is no advocacy scheme available to represent my brother but I didn’t get an answer until some long time after I asked,” and, “As (name of resident’s) legal guardian, I have asked Charles Curran House for details of his finances, his outgoings and his bank account balances as I am responsible for his financial well being. I instructed the home by letter in early 2007 to buy him new bedroom furniture but have not received notice that this has been done.” A further comment of note is this, “I believe that there are plans to have new accommodation in say 2/3 years time. As these plans take shape I trust the relatives of those living at Charles Curran House will be kept fully informed so that they will be able to make any comments they feel necessary as the plans progress.” If there is a connecting thread between these last three concerns, it is one of past communication perhaps not being as good as it should have been. Charles Curran House DS0000032472.V367922.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 18 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): 24 and 30. Quality in this outcome area is adequate. This judgement has been made using available evidence including a visit to this service. The premises have not been sufficiently well cleaned or maintained throughout. EVIDENCE: We toured the premises in the company of the Team Leader and met those residents who had not gone to their day centre, and met various members of staff. Some bedrooms, and the lounge in Fernside unit have been redecorated. The latter has a lovely new carpet. Some soft furnishings have been replaced and wide screen televisions have been purchased. A new Oxford hoist also acts as a weighing machine. Despite these improvements, the premises remain in need of substantial refurbishment. Specific examples include damaged wall plaster in a toilet following a roof leak in Fernside, a grubby corridor carpet in Upper Northside, and broken drawers and cupboard doors in various kitchens. Charles Curran House DS0000032472.V367922.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 19 The staff sleeping in room was also seen to be rather basic, with a soiled washhand basin, and no shower facility. The home was generally and superficially clean and hygienic, with the exceptions of one bedroom that smelt of urine, a communal carpet that was soiled, and the presence of dead insects within many glass lampshades. These had been removed by our second inspection visit. Charles Curran House DS0000032472.V367922.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 20 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): 32, 34 and 35. Quality in this outcome area is good. This judgement has been made using available evidence including a visit to this service. There are sufficient staff to look after residents but not enough staff members are permanent employees. Those that are permanent have been properly recruited and have been excellently trained. EVIDENCE: We examined the home’s staff rota for the day of the inspection. All four units had two staff members allocated to work within them throughout the day. Of the 17 support staff identified to work the day of the first inspection, 6 were permanent employees at Charles Curran House, 2 were employees of Hillingdon’s reserve staff bank, and 9 were temporary agency staff. The Team Leader explained that where possible the same agency staff members were used for continuity purposes, and that the policy was for an agency member of staff to work alongside a permanent member of staff. The figures quoted here however suggest this is not always possible. The situation is about to improve as in September 2008, 3 senior staff members are due to transfer from a home that is closing, and 4 new staff have been recruited. Unfortunately two existing staff members are also due to leave, so a reliance on reserve bank staff and temporary agency staff will continue, but to a lesser degree than at present. Charles Curran House DS0000032472.V367922.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 21 Temporary agency staff are subject to a short induction process at Charles Curran House, an example of which we examined. The temporary agency staff bring with them a ‘passport’ from their agency that includes their photograph and details of their training and qualifications. The AQAA document states that 95 of the home’s support staff have obtained an NVQ award in care, and the remaining permanent staff member is undertaking the award. This very high ratio is commended. Additional training has included a member of staff recently undertaking TIZZARD training in behavioural management techniques. Recruitment files were not examined on this occasion as recruitment is currently underway and key documents are held not by the home but by the Human Resources Section of London Borough of Hillingdon. Our previous experience has been that all appropriate recruitment checks are undertaken. We examined training records for the permanent staff and found them to be well maintained. Training and development needs are identified as part of supervision process which we also examined an example of. Charles Curran House DS0000032472.V367922.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 22 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): 37, 39 and 42. Quality in this outcome area is good. This judgement has been made using available evidence including a visit to this service. The Manager is well qualified to manage the home, and the views of relatives are taken into account, but there remain some minor health and safety concerns. EVIDENCE: The current acting Manager of the home has many years of experience working with people with a learning disability, and has achieved the Registered Managers Award. Quality Assurance surveys are undertaken by the London Borough of Hillingdon and the home is kept informed of the results. Regular meetings with parents and carers take place. In terms of health and safety, we examined fridge and freezer temperatures and found that the thermometer in the meat fridge was showing minus 2 degrees Centigrade, which is too cold. The Team Leader agreed to investigate Charles Curran House DS0000032472.V367922.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 23 why this was. The Manager subsequently told us there had been a problem with batteries in the thermometer. We also examined hot water temperature records, which were satisfactory, and the situation on the day of the inspection, which was not wholly satisfactory as the hot water supply at one bedroom wash-hand basin was only 35 degrees Centigrade as opposed to the 42 plus or minus 2 degrees that is required. The same situation pertained on our second visit but the Manager said the fault had been reported. Charles Curran House DS0000032472.V367922.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 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 2 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 2 25 x 26 x 27 x 28 x 29 x 30 2 STAFFING Standard No Score 31 x 32 4 33 x 34 3 35 3 36 x CONDUCT AND MANAGEMENT OF THE HOME Standard No 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 Score 3 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 3 x x 2 x Charles Curran House DS0000032472.V367922.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 25 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 2 Standard YA1 YA24 Regulation 4 and 5 23(2)© Requirement Timescale for action 01/10/08 3 4 YA30 YA42 23(2)(d) 16(2)(j) The home’s Statement of Purpose and Service Users’ Guide must be kept up to date. The items of damaged furniture 01/05/09 and equipment mentioned in the text of this report must be replaced. Dirty carpets must be cleaned or 01/11/08 replaced. In order to assist in infection 01/10/08 control, the hot water supplied to residents for washing purposes should be 42 degrees Centigrade plus or minus 2 degrees. 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 Refer to Standard YA6 Good Practice Recommendations The link worker and team leader should sign each care plan to demonstrate who has prepared it and that the contents have been agreed by management. Where possible the resident should sign their agreement to the DS0000032472.V367922.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 26 Charles Curran House 2 YA7 3 YA19 plan, and failing that, a relative, friend or an advocate should sign it where feasible. A greater emphasis should be placed on early consultation with new residents and their supporters to determine residents’ likes and dislikes, and the findings should be recorded in the Person Centred Plan as a priority in order to provide a better service to residents. The home should have a policy that all staff are aware of whereby the weight of all residents is normally taken and recorded on a monthly basis in order to assist in monitoring the residents’ health. Charles Curran House DS0000032472.V367922.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 27 Commission for Social Care Inspection London Regional Office 4th Floor Caledonia House 223 Pentonville Road London N1 9NG 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 Charles Curran House DS0000032472.V367922.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!