Care Home: Renhold Community Home

Similar services:

• Coopers Mill Ltd
• Bramley Avenue (73)
• Paradise Lodge
• Grangewood
• Upaya Ananda
• Newton Court (1-2)
• Kings Lane (32)
• Pemdale

What the care home does well What has improved since the last inspection? This was, formally, the first inspection since the home has been re-registered. What the care home could do better: It was felt that the home and people living there could identify and work on improvements themselves, in a way that suited people that used the service. They planned improvements and carried out their plans. Some of their intentions to improve service are, as stated in their self assessment: "Working with the new provider to continue our high standards and within a programme of improvement. We have a void at the moment and will be able to test our new procedures. it will give an opportunity to test our local procedures and make alterations should this be necessary. We plan to run a number of training sessions for support staff on the Mental Capacity Act and supported decision making, in order to improve awareness and understanding. We also plan to run training sessions for staff on incident reporting as stated above. Through the Quality Checkers scheme Choice Support has employed Service Users to audit our services. We will extend our pilot project to enable Service Users to write individualised Person Specifications for their support staff enabling them to identify the qualities that they value in staff and the way in which they provide support. Choice Support continues to progress the process of supporting Service Users to be actively involved in staff appraisals; probation reviews and internal transfers of staff." By doing this and more as explained during the site visit, there was no need to impose requirements by us, the regulators. CARE HOME ADULTS 18-65 Renhold Community Home 30 Hookhams Lane Renhold Bedfordshire MK41 0JT Lead Inspector Dragan Cvejic Unannounced Inspection 6th August 2008 08:00 Renhold Community Home DS0000071792.V369858.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 Renhold Community Home DS0000071792.V369858.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. Renhold Community Home DS0000071792.V369858.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 3 SERVICE INFORMATION Name of service Renhold Community Home Address 30 Hookhams Lane Renhold Bedfordshire MK41 0JT 01234 772481 01234 772930 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) www.choicesupport.org.uk Choice Support Mrs Gillian Hudson Care Home 5 Category(ies) of Learning disability (5) registration, with number of places Renhold Community Home DS0000071792.V369858.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 4 SERVICE INFORMATION Conditions of registration: 1. The registered person may provide the following category of service of service only: Care home - Code PC to service users to the following gender: Either whose primary care needs on admission to the home are within the following category: Learning Disability - Code LD The maximum number of service users who can be accommodated is: 5 N/A 2. Date of last inspection Brief Description of the Service: Little Paddocks Renhold Community Home, known as Little Paddocks, is a residential home for up to five adults with learning disabilities. It has recently changed ownership and became a project of the Choice Support organisation. The home is situated in the North Bedfordshire village of Renhold, approximately 2 miles from Bedford town centre. Some local facilities are situated close to the home, including a shop. The building is single storey, and provides five single bedrooms of varying sizes. At the time of writing, there was one service user vacancy. Communal space and facilities include: a lounge, conservatory, a kitchen/diner, 1 bathroom with bath and toilet, 1 bathroom with shower and toilet, and a separate toilet; a laundry room, and a staff office. The home has its own transport, which is suitable for wheelchairs. Parking for several cars is available at the front of the property, and there is a large garden to the rear of the property. The home has developed user friendly information for current service users. Full information regarding the service’s fees, including any additional charges was available in the home’s service user’s guide and the current figure was £847.60 for three-monthly service. Renhold Community Home DS0000071792.V369858.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 5 SUMMARY This is an overview of what the inspector found during the inspection. The quality rating for this service is 2 star. This means the people who use this service experience good quality outcomes. This was the first unannounced inspection since the change of ownership and re-registration of the home. We, the CSCI (Commission for Social Care Inspection), were collecting information about the home since March, when the home was re-registered under new ownership. There was a change of manager just a few weeks prior to the site visit and both the new and old manager were present during the site visit and provided information for this report. We have also used the AQAA (Annual Quality Assurance Assessment), a selfassessment document filled in by the home, to inform this inspection. We have asked an Expert-By-Experience to help us with this inspection and we have used their findings in this report. Experts-By-Experience are people that have used similar services and are familiar with conditions that service users in this home have. They spoke to the service users to get a “first hand” opinion about the outcomes, about the life and satisfaction with care and processes, directly from the users of the service. We have sent questionnaires to people that live here and staff and to the relatives of users of the service. Three users of the service, three relatives and five staff responded and their comments are used in this report. Our site visit provided additional information about the home. We checked the environment by touring the home, we spoke to three people that live here, to 2 staff and to the new and the old manager. We also checked some documents, such as users’ files, staff files, medication and training records and observed staff working with people that use this service. What the service does well: Although existing users of the service have been living here for some time and no new people have been admitted, the admission process was well developed. The home offered excellent information to prospective users of the service allowing them to make an informed choice about the home where they wanted to live. One of the users had this information on audio tape, showing that blindness is not an obstacle to gaining this necessary information. In their AQAA, the home stated: “All Service Users and their families, where appropriate, are given a Service User Guide which is discussed in detail with them.” They also confirmed that the initial assessment was given high importance to determine if users’ needs could be fully met, if admitted: “We have produced an effective referrals and admissions local policy which involves the service users and has clear evidence of assessment of need, non discriminatory Renhold Community Home DS0000071792.V369858.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 6 practice, introductory visits and how we intend to meet the needs of the proposed service user.” The experts-by-experience reported on their findings: “QUALITY OF LIFE: • Service users can play music both in the lounge and their rooms. • • Service users have TV in their rooms Service users choose what they watch on the TV. CHOICE AND CONTROL: • Service users decide what they wear. • • • • • • • • • • Service users choose when to go out and where to go with the help of staff during the day. At the weekends, evenings and days service users decides when to go to bed and get up. A service user said “I don’t go to the garden” his choice is respected. Can you choose where to go? The service user said “I can go anywhere I like with staff”. Service users decide what to eat and drink. A menu is made available for service users to choose from. The decoration in service users’ rooms was chosen by service users. Service users were assisted in going for shopping; two service users went to Tesco when we got to the home. Service users go to clubs, cinemas and have dinner locally. A service user was observed rejecting a biscuit from staff and this decision was respected.” A relative of a user of the service commented: “My relatives’ needs are being met by her carers in wonderful ways and her housing experiences and skill are constantly being expanded.” The home offered very good care to the people living there. What has improved since the last inspection? What they could do better: Renhold Community Home DS0000071792.V369858.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 7 It was felt that the home and people living there could identify and work on improvements themselves, in a way that suited people that used the service. They planned improvements and carried out their plans. Some of their intentions to improve service are, as stated in their self assessment: “Working with the new provider to continue our high standards and within a programme of improvement. We have a void at the moment and will be able to test our new procedures. it will give an opportunity to test our local procedures and make alterations should this be necessary. We plan to run a number of training sessions for support staff on the Mental Capacity Act and supported decision making, in order to improve awareness and understanding. We also plan to run training sessions for staff on incident reporting as stated above. Through the Quality Checkers scheme Choice Support has employed Service Users to audit our services. We will extend our pilot project to enable Service Users to write individualised Person Specifications for their support staff enabling them to identify the qualities that they value in staff and the way in which they provide support. Choice Support continues to progress the process of supporting Service Users to be actively involved in staff appraisals; probation reviews and internal transfers of staff.” By doing this and more as explained during the site visit, there was no need to impose requirements by us, the regulators. 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. Renhold Community Home DS0000071792.V369858.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 Renhold Community Home DS0000071792.V369858.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): 1,2,3, Quality in this outcome area is excellent. This judgement has been made using available evidence including a visit to this service. People that used the service and prospective users were in the position to make an informed decision, as the information about the home was provided in appropriate formats and the assessments by the home were detailed and comprehensive and allowed good decisions to be made. EVIDENCE: The home provided information about the home and the service in an effective way and with input from users of the service. One of the people had an audio tape with information about the home. All checked files had a comprehensive assessment in their files, showing that admission was a planned, inclusive and effective process. The manager explained and re-confirmed the admission process in the AQAA: “All prospective Service Users are fully assessed, often in conjunction with other professionals, families and/or advocates prior to a Service commencing and the individuals support needs are identified and planned for against the Statement of Purpose. All Service Users and their families, where appropriate, are given a Service User Guide, which is discussed in detail with them. Renhold Community Home DS0000071792.V369858.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 10 We are proactive in consulting and involving families and carers within the service.” A Service User’s Guide was produced for the people that use or would intend to use the service and it was available with photographs depicting life in the home and the local community, providing a visually descriptive way of representing life in the home. Renhold Community Home DS0000071792.V369858.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 11 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): 6,7,8,9 Quality in this outcome area is good. This judgement has been made using available evidence including a visit to this service. Very well prepared care plans helped staff respond to users’ needs and abilities so that users were able to fully express their abilities and to develop independence as much as they wanted. EVIDENCE: Person Centred Planning, recently introduced to the home, helped the home address care principles for each individual in a holistic way. They addressed all aspects of people’s lives with very detailed and clear instructions to staff on how to support and help the people that used the service in order to achieve their goals and full potential. Two files were checked and both were detailed, up to date and agreed with people that used the service. The layout, a shortened and simplified version of the plan for people that use the service, one in picture format, and a detailed description for staff on what to do and how to do it to help them, exceeded basic expectations and minimum standards. Renhold Community Home DS0000071792.V369858.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 12 The AQAA described the plans: “The plan will document where the support is to be offered and when, for example the Service User may wish to have their bath before or after breakfast. In some instances, where appropriate and with the Service Users permission, pictures may be used to demonstrate a complicated instruction for example hoisting, the pictures are not intended to replace proper training, only to indicate to the Support Staff how the Service User likes things done. We have gradually been extending the use of pictures across the service over recent months, particularly where these aid the understanding and involvement of the Service User in the Support Plan preparation.” Comments from relatives, from report of expert-by-experience and files in the home, showed that care plans were working documents and helped both users and staff achieve the full potential each individual possessed. People living in the home were involved in the decision making process. The expert by experience reported: “A service user said “I don’t go to the garden” his choice is respected. Can you choose were to go? The service user said “I can go anywhere I like with staff”. Service users decide what to eat and drink.” The AQAA reconfirmed involvement of people living in the home into the management and the decision making: “Minutes from 1-1 service user and key worker meetings, care team and tenant meetings, decision making records. Records are written with mind to the communication methods of servce users, recording their involvement. Reviewed and updated all our local policies.” The files checked showed that clear and detailed risk assessments were drawn up and cross-referenced to care plans, making them working documents that protected users of the service. Both care plans and risk assessments were present in peoples’ bedrooms and one of them proudly showed us a “My Life”, a picture format of these documents. Renhold Community Home DS0000071792.V369858.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 13 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): 11,12,13,14,15,16,17 Quality in this outcome area is good. This judgement has been made using available evidence including a visit to this service. The lifestyle of the people living in the home was a result of their wishes, likes and dislikes and their highly respected choice. EVIDENCE: People living in the home were all over 60 years of age. Their development lied in the area of developing community contacts and independent life skills, as well as taking part in fulfilling activities. The best description of this development was produced by the expert-byexperience in their report: “Service users can play music both in the lounge and their rooms. Service users have TV in their rooms Service users choose what they watch on the TV. Service users decide what they wear. Renhold Community Home DS0000071792.V369858.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 14 Service users choose when to go out and where to go with the help of staff during the day. At the weekends, evenings and days service users decide when to go to bed and get up. Service users decide what to eat and drink. A menu is made available for service users to choose from. The decoration in the rooms of service users was chosen by them. Service users were assisted in going for shopping; two service users went to Tesco when we got to the home. Service users go to clubs, cinemas and have dinner locally.” A user of the service told us that he goes to the local pub: “I love going there for a beer. Staff take me there when I want.” A relative provided a comment about the home’s arrangements for the daily routine of the people living there: “My relative is the only woman in the home but the men residents regard her as a much cherished little sister to them all. She is encouraged in ladylike activities, is always dressed beautifully and smells delicious. She is always ready (and toileted) and waiting for me when I arrive to take her to Church with me on Sunday mornings. We get a big welcome on our return and a beautiful, traditionally cooked Sunday lunch awaits everyone. Being blind, she is encouraged to track for herself when she wants to go anywhere and, being unable to speak, there is a whiteboard in her room updated daily for messages from her to us (messages written by carers and the relative to each other). She understands much of what we say to her in English.” During the site visit we observed breakfast, whereby two users were supported by two staff members, while the other two ate independently. Shopping with people that live in the home provided the opportunity for them to choose what they wanted to eat in addition to the planned menu agreed on Residents’ meetings. A good relationship with neighbours created an atmosphere in which the people living in the home felt as if they were a part of the community. A minibus owned by the home also provided access to local community facilities and events. Families were deeply involved in life of the home and supported users of the service emotionally and socially. Two people used to go on holidays, while the other two preferred day trips. Renhold Community Home DS0000071792.V369858.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 15 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): 18,19,20, Quality in this outcome area is good. This judgement has been made using available evidence including a visit to this service. Health care of people living in the home was given essential attention, to ensure that any potential action is taken and appropriate treatment introduced, to protect users of the service from the very beginning of any potential problem. EVIDENCE: The home’s AQAA reported: “We have Implemented and reviewed an individual support plan designed with each client triangulated with the care plan and risk assessment. We have conducted a daily audit of care practice overseen by co-ordinator of care. We monitor skin condition and access specialists quickly. We manage the medications and records. We can evidence our approach to the death and dying of a service user and how we deal with carrying out their wishes at the end and after. Renhold Community Home DS0000071792.V369858.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 16 Where a Service User has a healthcare need, a written Health Action Plan and a specific care plan will be developed. The Plan will give the reasons the support is to be offered, it is usually indicated in the specialist instructions. These give clear instruction on how support must be offered and under what circumstances. If the health issue requires staff to carry out tasks for which they must have specialist training then the parameters of their role are agreed with the relevant professional in charge, for example, PEG feeding. Staff will then be trained by an appropriate professional, until they are satisfied that they are competent. Wherever possible the Service User will be encouraged to carry out as much of the task themselves as they can for example, setting up feeding and being actively involved in the process.” The expert-by-experience report commented on the personal support group of standards, based on conversation with people who live in the home: “Service users decide what they wear. Service users choose to bath or shower. Service users feel safe in the home. Birthdays are celebrated in the home and holidays for service users are already arranged. Both male and female staff attend to service users.” Records checked confirmed that the home organised reviews where social services and advocates were attending and contributing to the overall care of the people living in the home. A separate “Health Action Plan”, in addition to the general plan of care, helped staff monitor health of people using the service and engaging relevant professionals when there was a need. Medication records were checked and the process of administering medication to people was observed. Two staff signed and checked medication. The management was reviewing both the records and medication fully on a weekly basis, ensuring safe procedure was respected by all staff. Renhold Community Home DS0000071792.V369858.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 17 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): 22,23 Quality in this outcome area is good. This judgement has been made using available evidence including a visit to this service. Service users and staff were protected by safe and clear policies and procedures and knew what to do in cases of potential breaches of these protective measures. EVIDENCE: The home reported that they had not received any complaints and that there were no allegations or referrals to the Protection of Vulnerable Adults register. People living in the home confirmed both in questionnaires and verbally during the site visit that they knew how to complain and would complain “if there was anything to complain about”, as one user of the service stated. The expert-by-experience reported: “The care home is safe and conducive for the service users. The service users are respected, and have choice, well taken care of, free from discrimination and finally happy and relate well with staff.” On protection related issues, the home stated in their AQAA: “We spend time discussing issues of culture and diversity at team meetings. Choice Support has a range of policies and procedures in place to address these issues. This includes an accessible version of the Bullying and Harassment policy written by service users. Wherever possible service users are involved in recruiting their staff to ensure they are able to meet the cultural, religious and spiritual needs of each person. We have an equal opportunities policy that promotes the rights of individuals. Renhold Community Home DS0000071792.V369858.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 18 We enable staff to use the SOVA system as a learning tool when things go wrong. We have a policy of learning by mistakes and not apportioning blame. We support our staff when mistakes occur. We encourage the use of the whistleblowing policy, complaints and grievance procedure.” Renhold Community Home DS0000071792.V369858.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 19 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): 24,30 Quality in this outcome area is good. This judgement has been made using available evidence including a visit to this service. The home was clean, comfortable and provided the opportunity for the people living here to experience the responsibility of living in own home. EVIDENCE: The home was clean, bright and comfortable during the unannounced site visit. They have also stated in their self assessment: “We provide a good quality spacious home in excellent repair. All users have their own bedrooms and extensive gardens and outside spaces. Everybody has access to all communal areas. Client input to improvements and alterations is constantly sought. We have been able to access equipment and adaptations quickly when things change.” The tour around the home confirmed the self-assessment. Renhold Community Home DS0000071792.V369858.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 20 The expert-by-experience reported after talking to people living here: “The care home is safe and conducive for the service users. The decoration in the rooms of service users were chosen by them.” The manager reported that the home was inspected by the fire department. There were no requirements from them, but the home produced different fire procedures for day and night, ensuring priority was given to saving lives in case of fire. Being clean and bright, the home easily complied with infection control measures. Laundry procedure also helped respecting precautions to ensure hygiene and infection control were protective measures in place. Renhold Community Home DS0000071792.V369858.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 21 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): 31,32,33,34,35,36 Quality in this outcome area is excellent. This judgement has been made using available evidence including a visit to this service. The very good, stable and knowledgeable staff team not only offered good care to people living here, but also helped them feel the warmth, friendliness and freedom, while being well protected. EVIDENCE: Staff were clear of their roles and observation of staff during the site visit, demonstrated well organised and effective work. This also helped create a relaxed and nice, friendly atmosphere. Their expert-by-experience reported their findings: “It was observed that there is a friendly relationship between the staff and service users. Staffs were observed feeding service users at the time of inspection. Staffs were observed assisting a service user in a wheelchair to move around. Staffs were observed to be friendly and kind towards service users.” The homes advantage was a stable, experienced and knowledgeable staff team, fully aware of the conditions and abilities of people living in the home. The very high level of NVQ (National Vocational Qualification) trained staff contributed to the effectiveness of staff work and better service to people living Renhold Community Home DS0000071792.V369858.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 22 in the home. More than 90 of staff held the qualification, or were attending NVQ training. Two staff files were checked and confirmed that all recruitment procedures were respected. Both files were in order and contained all required documents. There were two files for each staff, one with their personal details and the other for direct work records, such as for supervision, training and other direct work related issues. The management displayed a job description on the board in the office, reminding staff of their duties and responsibilities in an informal, non-intrusive way. Training records showed that training on all mandatory subjects was up to date. The group or “Team supervision” as it was called in the home, enabled staff to meet as a team working with each individual user of the service, which produced a very focused and effective review of care. The management were planning to start this year’s appraisals in October. Two staff spoken to stated that they were very happy working here, were well supported and felt free to talk to anyone, including the higher management structure of the organisation. Their satisfaction had a significant effect on the quality of service they offered to people living in this home. In terms of users of the service views on staff, the home exceeded minimum standards. Renhold Community Home DS0000071792.V369858.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 23 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): Quality in this outcome area is good. This judgement has been made using available evidence including a visit to this service. Effective management of the home ensured safe working practices were in place, not only by full respect of the policies and procedures, but by the inclusion of people who live here into the creation of these policies. EVIDENCE: Although the home was currently “between” two managers, the old manager stayed long enough to provide induction and to ensure that the new manager was fully aware of the home’s achievements, aims and ways of reaching objectives. The presence of the old manager was incredibly important for the people that live here, as they started developing full trust in the new person who was going to manage the home in the future. The new manager had all the favoured qualities and started building appropriate relationships with people living here and staff. Renhold Community Home DS0000071792.V369858.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 24 Quality assurance was a tool that the home used to assess its’ own successes, gaps, potential problems and issues bothering any one individual, equally users of the service or a staff member. Questionnaires, meetings, comments and observations were used as methods in this self-devised quality assurance system, which proved to be very effective in the home. Excellent records for individuals living here were a guide for the new manager on how to organise staff files to the same standard. Records were safe, but people living here had the feeling of records belonging to them and they were proud of that. Safe working practices were all in place. Up-to-date training for staff, involvement of people living in the home in reviews of the policies and health and safety measures in the home and risk assessments helped maintain safe working practices. The expert-by-experience concluded their report by saying and confirming other evidence that proved that: “The care home is safe and conducive for the service users. The service users are respected, and have choice, well taken care of, free from discrimination and finally happy and relate well with staff.” Renhold Community Home DS0000071792.V369858.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 25 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 4 2 3 3 4 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 3 32 4 33 4 34 3 35 3 36 4 CONDUCT AND MANAGEMENT OF THE HOME Standard No 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 Score 4 3 4 3 X LIFESTYLES Standard No Score 11 3 12 3 13 3 14 3 15 4 16 3 17 3 PERSONAL AND HEALTHCARE SUPPORT Standard No 18 19 20 21 Score 4 3 3 X 3 X 4 3 3 3 X Renhold Community Home DS0000071792.V369858.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 26 N/A 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. Standard Regulation Requirement Timescale for action RECOMMENDATIONS These recommendations relate to National Minimum Standards and are seen as good practice for the Registered Provider/s to consider carrying out. No. Refer to Standard Good Practice Recommendations Renhold Community Home DS0000071792.V369858.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 27 Commission for Social Care Inspection Eastern Region Commission for Social Care Inspection Eastern Regional Contact Team CPC1, Capital Park Fulbourn Cambridge, CB21 5XE 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 Renhold Community Home DS0000071792.V369858.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!