Care Home: Summerlands

Similar services:

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

What the care home does well The home has a good process in place for identifying and planning to meet the needs of service users as well as monitoring and addressing their healthcare needs. People living in the home are supported to express choices about their daily lives and these are respected. There is a clear complaints procedure in place and service users are also consulted about the development of the service. Staffing is adequate to meet the needs of service users and staff receive good training. What has improved since the last inspection? All outstanding requirements from the previous inspection had been addressed. These related mainly to the building and there have been significant improvements to the appearance and comfort of the home since the previous inspection. The Manager has also introduced a comprehensive quality assurance process which has resulted in all aspects of the service being much more closely monitored and issues have been responded to in a timely manner as they have been identified. What the care home could do better: We have made requirements in this report regarding the administering of medication, the protection of service users in regard to their personal finances and the improvement of activities in the home.SummerlandsDS0000011856.V376401.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Key inspection report CARE HOME ADULTS 18-65 Summerlands 9 Villiers Road Southsea Portsmouth Hampshire PO5 2HG Lead Inspector Nick Morrison Key Unannounced Inspection 7th July 2009 09:30a Summerlands DS0000011856.V376401.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 1 This report is a review of the quality of outcomes that people experience in this care home. We believe high quality care should: • • • • • Be safe Have the right outcomes, including clinical outcomes Be a good experience for the people that use it Help prevent illness, and promote healthy, independent living Be available to those who need it when they need it. We review the quality of the service against outcomes from the National Minimum Standards (NMS). Those standards are written by the Department of Health for each type of care service. Copies of the National Minimum Standards – Care home adults 18-65 can be found at www.dh.gov.uk or bought from The Stationery Office (TSO) PO Box 29, St Crispins, Duke Street, Norwich, NR3 1GN. Tel: 0870 600 5522. Online ordering from the Stationery Office is also available: www.tso.co.uk/bookshop. The mission of the Care Quality Commission is to make care better for people by: • Regulating health and adult social care services to ensure quality and safety standards, drive improvement and stamp out bad practice • Protecting the rights of people who use services, particularly the most vulnerable and those detained under the Mental Health Act 1983 • Providing accessible, trustworthy information on the quality of care and services so people can make better decisions about their care and so that commissioners and providers of services can improve services. • Providing independent public accountability on how commissioners and providers of services are improving the quality of care and providing value for money. Summerlands DS0000011856.V376401.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 2 Reader Information Document Purpose Author Audience Further copies from Copyright Inspection Report Care Quality Commission General Public 0870 240 7535 (telephone order line) Copyright © (2009) Care Quality Commission (CQC). This publication may be reproduced in whole or in part, free of charge, in any format or medium provided that it is not used for commercial gain. This consent is subject to the material being reproduced accurately and on proviso that it is not used in a derogatory manner or misleading context. The material should be acknowledged as CQC copyright, with the title and date of publication of the document specified. www.cqc.org.uk Internet address Summerlands DS0000011856.V376401.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 3 SERVICE INFORMATION Name of service Summerlands Address 9 Villiers Road Southsea Portsmouth Hampshire PO5 2HG 023 9283 0682 023 9283 0682 francescabilsland@yahoo.co.uk 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) Mrs Francesca Bilsland Miss Joy Michelle Tremayne Care Home 23 Category(ies) of Learning disability (0) registration, with number of places Summerlands DS0000011856.V376401.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 4 SERVICE INFORMATION Conditions of registration: 1. The registered person may provide the following category/ies of service only: Care home only - (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 (LD). The maximum number of service users to be accommodated is 23. Date of last inspection 2nd October 2008 Brief Description of the Service: Summerlands is a Grade 2 listed building designed by the architect Thomas Owen and built in the 19th century. The interior and exterior of the home have numerous features of architectural interest. The building was converted to provide care/support and accommodation for up to 23 people with a learning disability some time ago and is in need of significant improvement. The home is located close to, and between, Southsea shopping centre and the sea front, promenade and beach. Accommodation is set over four floors and consists of five single and nine double rooms. There is a stair lift between two floors. However, it does not extend to the lounge and dining room level. Therefore, rooms on the upper levels are not suitable for people with mobility difficulties. There is a pleasant walled garden with seating, accessible from the lounge and available for residents’ use. Summerlands DS0000011856.V376401.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 1 star. This means the people who use this service experience adequate quality outcomes. This report represents a review of all the evidence and information gathered about the service since the previous inspection. This included a site visit by two Inspectors that occurred on 7th July 2009 and lasted five hours. During this time we looked around the premises, looked at the files of five service users, spoke with three of them and observed the support they were receiving. We also met the Manager, spoke with two members of staff and observed interaction between staff and service users. All records and relevant documentation referred to in the report was seen on the day of the inspection visit. What the service does well: What has improved since the last inspection? What they could do better: We have made requirements in this report regarding the administering of medication, the protection of service users in regard to their personal finances and the improvement of activities in the home. Summerlands DS0000011856.V376401.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 6 If you want to know what action the person responsible for this care home is taking following this report, you can contact them using the details on page 4. The report of this inspection is available from our website www.cqc.org.uk. You can get printed copies from enquiries@cqc.org.uk or by telephoning our order line – 0870 240 7535. Summerlands DS0000011856.V376401.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 7 DETAILS OF INSPECTOR FINDINGS CONTENTS Choice of Home (Standards 1–5) Individual Needs and Choices (Standards 6-10) Lifestyle (Standards 11-17) Personal and Healthcare Support (Standards 18-21) Concerns, Complaints and Protection (Standards 22-23) Environment (Standards 24-30) Staffing (Standards 31-36) Conduct and Management of the Home (Standards 37 – 43) Scoring of Outcomes Statutory Requirements Identified During the Inspection Summerlands DS0000011856.V376401.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 8 Choice of Home The intended outcomes for Standards 1 – 5 are: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Prospective service users have the information they need to make an informed choice about where to live. Prospective users’ individual aspirations and needs are assessed. Prospective service users know that the home that they will choose will meet their needs and aspirations. Prospective service users have an opportunity to visit and to “test drive” the home. Each service user has an individual written contract or statement of terms and conditions with the home. The Commission consider Standard 2 the key standard to be inspected. This is what people staying in this care home experience: JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for the following standard(s): 2 People using the service experience good quality outcomes in this area. We have made this judgement using a range of evidence, including a visit to this service. Service users benefit from having their needs and aspirations assessed prior to moving into the home. EVIDENCE: There had been no new admissions to the hoe since the previous inspection. We looked at the files of five people who live in the home. These showed us that the home requires a full care management assessment for each person before they move into the home. In addition to this, the home does its own comprehensive assessment. Records showed that all assessments were in place prior to the person moving in and that service users and their families had been involved in the assessments where possible. Summerlands DS0000011856.V376401.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 9 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. This is what people staying in this care home experience: JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for the following standard(s): 6, 7 and 9 People using the service experience good quality outcomes in this area. We have made this judgement using a range of evidence, including a visit to this service. Service users benefit from having clear care plans and risk assessments in place and from being supported to make their own decisions. EVIDENCE: We looked at the files of five people living in the home and discussed care plans and risk assessments with one person. Individual care plans were in place for each person living in the home and were clearly related to the initial assessment and the ongoing information the home had gathered on each person over time. Service users were involved in the care planning process and signed their care plans to say they agreed with them. There was also evidence from the records Summerlands DS0000011856.V376401.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 10 that service users, where possible, were involved in reviewing their own care plans with staff. There were records of monthly meetings between each service user and their keyworker. These records showed that care plans and other events in the person’s life were reviewed with the keyworker on a monthly basis. The service user spoken with confirmed to us that they were involved in these meetings and was clear about their own care plan. From observation during the inspection it was clear that people living in the home were supported to make their own decisions about their lives. This included day-to-day decisions about what they wanted to eat and what activities they took part in as well as what time they wanted to go to bed and get up. The records of keyworker meetings also demonstrated that people were able to make choices about the activities they were happy with and what other activities they may want to be involved in. Staff spoken with and observed throughout the inspection demonstrated an understanding of the need to help people make decisions rather than make decisions for them. Care plans were clear about how service users made decisions and about what things were important to them. Examination of records showed that risk assessments were clearly written and reviewed on a regular basis. Staff spoken with were clear about risk assessments for each person and the importance of supporting people in line with the risk assessments. Risk assessments were used to promote independence and support people living in the home to be involved safely in the activities they wanted to do. Some people living in the home were able to go out without staff support and this was supported by risk assessments. Summerlands DS0000011856.V376401.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 11 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): This is what people staying in this care home experience: 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 and 17 People using the service experience good quality outcomes in this area. We have made this judgement using a range of evidence, including a visit to this service. Service users benefit from having their rights respected and from balanced and nutritious meals. They also benefit from having the opportunity to engage in a wide range of activities both inside and outside of the home. EVIDENCE: Some activities are provided in the home. On the day of the inspection visit we observed members of staff doing colouring activities with some service users. There was also equipment available for various table-top games which staff told us they do with service users at other times during the week. We spoke with three service users about activities and two of them told us that they enjoyed the activities in the home and the other said they did not join in with any of the activities because they did not like them. During the day of the Summerlands DS0000011856.V376401.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 12 inspection there were a number of people who sat in the lounge watching the television. Service users do have the option of attending local day services and two of the people we spoke with told us they did attend and enjoyed spending time there. They told us they had a lot of friends there and were able to take part in a wider range of activities than were available in the home. As highlighted in the previous inspection report, the computer in the home does not work and the piano provided for service users needed tuning. We highlighted that providing equipment that is poorly maintained is devaluing to people living in the home. People living in the home were supported to maintain contact with their friends and families. Records were kept of visits from families and of people going to stay with families. People were also supported to maintain contact with their families over the telephone and staff assisted them to make telephone calls if necessary. A service user spoken with on the day of the inspection told us that they kept in touch with their family and that staff helped them make telephone calls when necessary. Food in the home was of good quality and people spoken with during the inspection visit said they enjoyed their meals. There was a weekly menu in place that had taken account of the known individual preferences of service users. Service users were able to change their minds and deviate from the menu if they chose to. Summerlands DS0000011856.V376401.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 13 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. This is what people staying in this care home experience: JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for the following standard(s): 18, 19 and 20 People using the service experience good quality outcomes in this area. We have made this judgement using a range of evidence, including a visit to this service. Service users benefit from having their healthcare needs met. Guidelines concerning the administering of medication need to be updated. EVIDENCE: Care plans contained information on how people preferred to be supported with their personal care. Two service users spoken with said they received all the support they needed with their personal care. Records showed that some people living in the home required support to maintain their own personal appearance and observation of people throughout the inspection visit showed that everyone’s personal appearance was maintained. The files demonstrated that healthcare needs were monitored and that people were supported to use healthcare services as necessary. People had been supported to attend doctors, chiropody, optician, and dentist appointments. Records were kept of each visit and of what action was necessary as a result of each appointment. We also found that there was evidence that staff in the Summerlands DS0000011856.V376401.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 14 home liaised closely with healthcare professionals in the interests of people living in the home. In discussion, one person living in the home told us that they had recently been supported to attend a medical appointment and another confirmed that staff always took them to see the doctor and the dentist whenever they needed to. Service users were also able to refuse to attend medical appointments and some people did. We discussed with the Manager the need to ensure that any risks associated with people not attending medical appointments should be highlighted and managed accordingly. The home had good liaison and communication with healthcare professionals to alleviate any potential problems associated with people refusing to attend appointments. The system for administering medication in the home was clear and was stated in the home’s policies. Staff who were involved in administering medication said they had received good training and demonstrated that they had a good understanding of medication issues. Medication records were clear and up-todate and all medication was stored appropriately and safely. There was a comprehensive system in place for monitoring medication with regular checks and crosschecking to minimise the possibility of any errors occurring. We observed medication being administered and found that the member of staff involved had received training and were able to administer the medication according to the home’s policy. All medication in the home was stored safely. We observed from medication records that one person living in the home had medication prescribed to be administered on an ‘as required’ basis so that it was given as staff thought it was necessary rather than at specific times during the day. This was referred to in the person’s care plan, but the guidance for staff about the circumstances in which the mediation should be administered was not as clear as it should be. The guidance said that the medication should be given if the person showed signs of distress, unrest and agitation. We discussed with the Manager the fact that individual staff may have different interpretations of distress, unrest and agitation and that because of this the guidelines should be written in terms of observable behaviour. In this way all staff could determine on the same basis when to give the medication and both the service user and staff would be better protected. We also discussed that the guidelines should be agreed with the person’s doctor so that the medication was given as intended. The person’s care plan did identify a number of interventions for staff to try before administering the medication and the consistency of approach was partly helped by the fact that the home has a consistent staff team. Despite Summerlands DS0000011856.V376401.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 15 this, it is necessary for guidelines to be in place so that staff can determine whether or not the medication is needed, based on observable behaviour and circumstances rather than on interpretation of distress, unrest and agitation. The Manager demonstrated to us that she was clear about what action needed to be taken in respect of this and the reasons for it. Summerlands DS0000011856.V376401.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. This is what people staying in this care home experience: JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for the following standard(s): 22 and 23 People using the service experience adequate quality outcomes in this area. We have made this judgement using a range of evidence, including a visit to this service. Service users benefit from having their views listened to. The financial interests of service users need to be better protected. EVIDENCE: We looked at the home’s complaints policies and records of complaints. Two service users spoken with said they were clear about how to complain if they wanted to, but had not felt the need to make formal complaints, as issues were resolved in house meetings or in conversation with the manager or their keyworker. No complaints had been received at the home. The complaints procedure was written in an ‘easy read’ format and service users had their own copy. There were behavioural supports plans in place for people whose behaviour occasionally caused problems for other people in the home. The way the plans were written demonstrated a positive approach to such behaviour and that individual service users were involved in the plans put in place for them. Any incidents were recorded. The home has good policies and procedures in place for dealing with allegations or suspicions of abuse. One service user spoken with had some knowledge of their rights and of abuse issues. Summerlands DS0000011856.V376401.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 17 Staff working in the home had received training in protecting vulnerable people and further training was planned. In looking at the records of service users’ personal finances we found that the Provider was named as the appointee for some people living in the home and so had a lot of control over their money. In some cases there were Post Office savings accounts that were held jointly in the name of the Provider and of the service user. This practice puts both the service user and the Provider in a vulnerable position and is contrary to the Care Homes Regulations 2001. We advised the Manager that she and the Provider should take measures to ensure that people had their own personal accounts and that, where people needed support to operate their own accounts, clear guidelines should be in place regarding how money is withdrawn from the account and how it is recorded. We also found that people living in the home were contributing out of their own personal money towards the activities provided in the home. This was not stated in the home‘s Statement of Purpose as an additional cost that people would be expected to pay and so people had not been admitted to the home on this basis. The Manager was unclear about whether the contracts the home had with the placing authorities included payments regarding activities provided in the home. We advised her that this should be considered as service users may be contributing to costs that are already met by the placing authority. All service users were expected to pay the same amount of contribution as each other regardless of how much they benefited from the activities in the home. The Manager did tell us that this was a voluntary contribution, but agreed that in effect it was not voluntary for people who did not have control over their own money and where the decision for them to pay was made by the Provider. Summerlands DS0000011856.V376401.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. This is what people staying in this care home experience: JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for the following standard(s): 24 and 30 People using the service experience good quality outcomes in this area. We have made this judgement using a range of evidence, including a visit to this service. Servcie suers benefit from living in a clean and safe environment. EVIDENCE: There was an outstanding requirement from the previous inspection that the Provider must supply the Commission with evidence from a suitably qualified person that the building is structurally sound. This information had been supplied to us and the requirement is met. We had made a number of requirements over the past few years relating to the fact that the building was in need of serious improvement. Since the previous inspection a lot of work had been undertaken on the home and all the requirements we had made have now been addressed. Summerlands DS0000011856.V376401.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 19 The home was in a much better state of repair at the time of this inspection. The downstairs bathroom had been completely renovated and carpets had been replaced in some parts of the building. The building also smelt fresher than it did at the time of the previous inspection. The home was now a much more pleasant environment for people to live in and two service users spoken with told us they had noticed the improvements. The home now has a system of planned maintenance in place and this is monitored monthly by the Manager as part of the quality assurance process. There was a maintenance book for reactive maintenance that was required as things went wrong in the home and needed attention. Records showed that maintenance issues were now being responded to more quickly than before. The building still has a slight institutional feel about it. Chairs in the lounge areas are all pushed back against the walls and the dining room has rectangular tables set out in an institutional manner. The Manager had introduced improved cleaning schedules that were regularly monitored through the quality assurance system. The schedules appeared effective in keeping the home clean and hygienic as no hygiene issues were highlighted during this inspection. Summerlands DS0000011856.V376401.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. This is what people staying in this care home experience: JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for the following standard(s): 32, 34 and 35 People using the service experience good quality outcomes in this area. We have made this judgement using a range of evidence, including a visit to this service. Service users benefit from being supported by adequate numbers of welltrained staff and are protected by the home’s recruitment policies and practices. EVIDENCE: There were two members of staff on duty throughout each part of the day and night. In addition the manager was available during the daytime. Service users spoken with said there were sufficient staff available in the home to meet the needs of the people living there and to ensure that they could go out and use local facilities at specific times during the week. Staff also said they felt the staffing was sufficient to meet people’s needs. Staff training was well managed and good records were kept of the training that each member of staff had received, what training they still needed to do and when updates were required. Staff spoken with said the training was useful and relevant to their role and that access to training was good. Summerlands DS0000011856.V376401.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 21 Improvements had been made to the staff training since the previous inspection and were ongoing. There were clear guidelines in place for staff so that they were aware of what was expected of them. These included Keyworker guidelines and a list of daily jobs that needed to be done. We looked at the files of four members of staff and found that recruitment records were kept which demonstrated that all staff were recruited in line with the home’s policy and that all pre-employment checks were undertaken prior to them working in the home. This included Criminal Records Bureau checks and references. Files also contained information confirming each person’s identity. The staff files also demonstrated that regular staff support and supervision was being provided and this was confirmed in discussion with staff. Summerlands DS0000011856.V376401.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. This is what people staying in this care home experience: JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for the following standard(s): 37, 39 and 42 People using the service experience good quality outcomes in this area. We have made this judgement using a range of evidence, including a visit to this service. Service users benefit from living in a well managed service that is responsive to their needs. EVIDENCE: Since the previous inspection the Manager of the home has become registered and has demonstrated that she has the skills, knowledge, experience and qualifications to manage the service. Having been in post for a short time before the previous inspection it was clear that improvements made to the service between then and now demonstrated effective and focused management. Summerlands DS0000011856.V376401.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 23 Throughout the inspection process the manager demonstrated that she has a good understanding of the service and of the issues that need addressing within the home. Staff and service users spoken with during the inspection spoke highly of the Manager and observation showed that service users felt comfortable in the presence of the Manager and were able to go into her office and ask her about issues relating to their own care. The quality assurance system in the home had been the subject of previous requirements in a number of previous inspections. Since the previous inspection the Manager has introduced and implemented a very thorough and comprehensive quality assurance that is updated on a monthly basis. The system focuses on the views and experiences of people who live in the home as well as monitoring all aspects of the service on a systematic basis. Good records were kept relating to quality assurance and feedback from service users and other stakeholders was collated and fed into the service planning process. The Manager is working on ways of how to present to service users and stakeholders the information about how the service plans to respond to issues raised through the quality assurance process. The manager is clear about managing health and safety within the service and has brought health and safety management up-to-date and incorporated it into the quality assurance system. Monthly health and safety checks are maintained. No health and safety issues were identified as a result of this inspection. Summerlands DS0000011856.V376401.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 X 2 3 3 X 4 X 5 X INDIVIDUAL NEEDS AND CHOICES Standard No 6 7 8 9 10 Score CONCERNS AND COMPLAINTS Standard No Score 22 3 23 2 ENVIRONMENT Standard No Score 24 3 25 X 26 X 27 X 28 X 29 X 30 3 STAFFING Standard No Score 31 X 32 3 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 2 15 3 16 3 17 3 PERSONAL AND HEALTHCARE SUPPORT Standard No 18 19 20 21 Score 3 3 2 X 3 X 3 X X 3 X Version 5.2 Page 25 Summerlands DS0000011856.V376401.R01.S.doc NO Are there any outstanding requirements from the last inspection? STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS This section sets out the actions, which must be taken so that the registered person/s meets the Care Standards Act 2000, Care Homes Regulations 2001 and the National Minimum Standards. The Registered Provider(s) must comply with the given timescales. No. 1 Standard YA14 Regulation 16 (2) (n) Requirement The Provider must ensure that individual service users are consulted about the activities they would to be involved in and that activities are provided according to those preferences. Records should be kept to demonstrate that individual needs are being addressed. The Provider must ensure that guidelines for (PRN) ‘as required’ medication are agreed with service users’ GP’s and detail clearly the circumstances in which the medication should be administered and what action should be attempted prior to administering this medication. The Provider must ensure that people using the service are not paying for any items that are not their responsibility and that the views of service users are represented in any decisions about individual expenditure. The Provider must ensure that people living in the home have their own bank accounts and that their views are represented in any decisions about individual DS0000011856.V376401.R01.S.doc Timescale for action 31/08/09 2 YA20 13 (2) 31/08/09 3 YA23 13 (6) 31/08/09 4 YA23 13 (6) 30/09/09 Summerlands Version 5.2 Page 26 expenditure. 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 Summerlands DS0000011856.V376401.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 27 Care Quality Commission The Oast Hermitage Court Hermitage Lane Maidstone Kent ME16 9NT National Enquiry Line: Telephone: 03000 616161 Email: enquiries@cqc.org.uk Web: www.cqc.org.uk We want people to be able to access this information. If you would like a summary in a different format or language please contact our helpline or go to our website. Copyright © (2009) Care Quality Commission (CQC). This publication may be reproduced in whole or in part, free of charge, in any format or medium provided that it is not used for commercial gain. This consent is subject to the material being reproduced accurately and on proviso that it is not used in a derogatory manner or misleading context. The material should be acknowledged as CQC copyright, with the title and date of publication of the document specified. Summerlands DS0000011856.V376401.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!