Setting

Living Springs DS0000047184.V308739.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 1 RESIDENTIAL FAMILY CENTRE

p.1

DY7 6QY

Lead Inspector Elizabeth Taylor Key Unannounced Inspection 1 November 2006 10:00 Living Springs DS0000047184.V308739.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 2 The Commission for Social Care Inspection aims to:

p.1

DY7 6QY

• 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

p.2

DY7 6QY

Reader Information Document Purpose Inspection Report Author CSCI Audience General Public Further copies from 0870 240 7535 (telephone order line) Copyright 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 Internet address www.csci.org.uk Living Springs DS0000047184.V308739.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 3 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 Residential Family Centres. 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

p.2

DY7 6QY

Every Child Matters, outlined the government’s vision for children’s services and formed the basis of the Children Act 2004. It provides a framework for inspection so that children’s services should be judged on their contribution to the outcomes considered essential to wellbeing in childhood and later life. Those outcomes are: • Being healthy • Staying safe • Enjoying and achieving • Making a contribution; and • Achieving economic wellbeing.

p.3

DY7 6QY

In response, the Commission for Social Care Inspection has re-ordered the national minimum standards for children’s services under the five outcomes, for reporting purposes. A further section has been created under ‘Management’ to cover those issues that will potentially impact on all the outcomes above.

p.3

DY7 6QY

Copies of Every Child Matters and The Children Act 2004 are available from The Stationery Office as above. This report is a public document. Extracts may not be used or reproduced without the prior permission of the Commission for Social Care Inspection. Living Springs DS0000047184.V308739.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 4

p.3

Name of service

Address Barratts Coppice Farmhouse Bridgnorth Road Stourton Stourbridge West Midlands DY7 6QY Telephone number 01384 872817

p.4

manager (if applicable)

Type of registration Residential Family Centre

p.4

of places

Living Springs DS0000047184.V308739.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 5

p.5

Conditions of registration:

1. Staffing arrangements are adequate to meet the needs of family residing in the centre. 2. Night staffing levels of one waking or sleeping person are maintained, dependent on the assessed needs of families resident in the centre. 3. Parents who are known to be suffering form mental ill-health will not be admitted. If there has been a history of mental illness, then the parents must be declared mentally well enough to undertake the assessment by a relevantly qualified medical practitioner. 4. Parents known to have abused the use of drugs or alcohol will not be admitted unless they are participating in a support programme with a recognised organisation as part of their on-going assessment. 5. Families will not be admitted where there is a history of violent/aggressive behaviour towards social workers, staff and/or other professionals.

p.5

Brief Description of the Service:

Living Springs is a detached property set in spacious grounds in a rural setting. It is registered to accommodate a total of three (3) families at any one time. Each family would have their own bedroom and lounge area with television. A further bedroom is available to accommodate a family with three or more members. Other facilities are shared within the Centre, including bathroom/shower rooms, toilets, dining room, kitchen and utility rooms. There are two communal lounges which are available to residents in out-of-office hours.

p.5

Brief Description of the Service:

The aim of the Centre is to provide a safe, supportive and caring environment in which the parenting abilities of families can be assessed and developed. Living Springs DS0000047184.V308739.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 6

p.5

SUMMARY

This is an overview of what the inspector found during the inspection.

p.6

SUMMARY

The announced inspection took place on a weekday, from mid-morning to late afternoon. The Inspector met with the Provider, who also manages the Centre and had a discussion with a senior member of staff. Two service users plus their babies were resident at the time of the visit. Only one service user was spoken with as the other service user was attending Court and preparing to leave the same day. A tour was made of the accommodation and grounds. All required records were looked at including both service users’ files and two staff files which were chosen randomly.

p.6

What the service does well:

The Manager was actively involved in all aspects of the running of the Centre, providing effective leadership to the whole team. Family Support Workers were clear about the objectives of each residential placement and it was possible to cross reference their observations and planned work with the objectives in service users’ Placement Plans. Members of the staff team held a variety of related qualifications and/or experience which equipped them to carry out their duties effectively. The safety of children resident in the Centre was paramount.

p.6

What the service does well:

A service user was very positive about her placement and said her views and suggestions were being sought, both in relation to daily matters and the running of the Centre. Staff were said to have given her good support and treated her with respect.

p.6

What has improved since the last inspection?

No improvements of note were reported or observed.

p.6

What they could do better:

The Providers/Managers’ range of responsibilities were somewhat onerous not least because the Centre had expanded its provision on site to include separate, independent living accommodation for mothers and babies. There was a need for her to deploy some tasks to enable her to focus on implementing developments which she referred to in the previous inspection Living Springs DS0000047184.V308739.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 7 such as a simpler, evaluation form for service users. All required records were being maintained in the Centre though gaps were identified in staff training and there was slippage in monthly checks being carried out on fire equipment. A good standard of service continued to be offered by the Centre and the Manager said arrangements were already in hand to appoint additional staff to enable her to re-direct some of her time and energy to management and operational matters.

p.6

What they could do better:

Please contact the provider for advice of actions taken in response to this inspection. The report of this inspection is available from enquiries@csci.gsi.gov.uk or by contacting your local CSCI office. Living Springs DS0000047184.V308739.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 8

p.7

CONTENTS

Enjoying and Achieving - There are no NMS that map to this outcome

p.8

CONTENTS

Statutory Requirements Identified During the Inspection Living Springs DS0000047184.V308739.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 9

p.8

The intended outcomes for these standards are:

• Families have access to health care, education, employment and leisure activities which promote their good health and well being, including their mental health, in a safe environment.(NMS 4)

p.9

JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for the following standard(s):

Arrangements were in place to ensure the health needs and general well-being of families resident in the Centre were adequately promoted and met by local services. Staff were supporting service users to access appropriate services.

p.9

EVIDENCE:

Due to the short-term nature of residential placements in the Centre – generally for a six week period - service users were encouraged to remain registered with their own Doctors’ practice. However, they were able to see a local Doctor, as a temporary resident, if necessary. The local Doctors’ practice was aware of the purpose and function of the Centre and were working with staff to ensure appropriate health services were made available. For example, both service users had a Health Visitor and arrangements were in place for an Antenatal Nurse to visit, as required. Other local health services included support for service users who may have drug or alcohol related problems, have suffered domestic violence or require pregnancy advice or counselling. The Manager said requests for psychological or psychiatric assessments tended to be commissioned by the courts.

p.9

EVIDENCE:

Staff were familiar with the location of local health services and were able to advise service users about how to access them. Service users were encouraged to arrange their own health care appointments though staff provided support and transport if necessary.

p.9

EVIDENCE:

The Centre operated a ‘no smoking’ policy within the building. However, service users and staff were able to use an area at the back of the main house, a covered porch, as a smoking area on site. Alternatively, they could walk off site to smoke.

p.9

EVIDENCE:

Arrangements for the storage and administration of medication were looked at. There was a general expectation that parents retained responsibility for administering medication to their own child however, this was risk assessed at Living Springs DS0000047184.V308739.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 10 the time of admission. Both service user’s files were looked at, one in detail and one briefly. Both contained a written risk assessment which highlighted areas of concern. However, one of the assessments had not been dated.

p.9

EVIDENCE:

It is recommended staff are reminded to ensure all important documents are dated.

p.10

EVIDENCE:

Service users were expected to store any medication they needed, prescribed and non-prescribed, in a lockable cabinet sited in the main office. The office was also locked when unoccupied. Service users then requested staff to open the cabinet as and when required.

p.10

EVIDENCE:

At the time of the inspection one service user had been assessed as requiring support with the administration of medication for her baby. Written consent had been gained from the service user for staff to administer medication to the baby. Whilst service users were responsible for administering and recording their own medication, a staff member was always present to observe they followed a safe procedure. Records of the administration of medication were clearly written and each dose of medication was countersigned by the service user and staff member.

p.10

EVIDENCE:

A recommendation from the last inspection was that a fridge be purchased for the specific storage of certain medication. A small fridge had been purchased and was located in the Manager’s office.

p.10

EVIDENCE:

Service users were responsible for purchasing and cooking their own meals and those of their children. However, staff offered advice about ‘healthy eating’ as part of the parentcraft classes which formed the basis of the Centres’ assessment process.

p.10

EVIDENCE:

The grounds around the house were spacious and included a play area for children as well as a ‘nature trail’. These offered an opportunity for physical exercise and play which contributed to the overall well-being of service users and their children. There were also a large number of toys and games available in the house, suitable for a wide age-range of children, to support their developmental needs.

p.10

EVIDENCE:

As noted in the previous report, parents continued to be encouraged to have some leisure/recreational time. Staff were able to offer a babysitting service to parents, in accordance with their assessed needs and circumstances. Arrangements for baby-sitting were seen to be clearly defined in the contract agreement between the Centre and parents. Staff also arranged some trips and activities for parents as incentives for effort towards, or achievement of, aims of the placement Living Springs DS0000047184.V308739.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 11

p.10

The intended outcomes for these standards are:

• Parents and children enjoy a level of comfort and security within the centre based on mutual respect and an understanding of what may have an adverse effect on other residents.(NMS 8) • The privacy of parents and children is respected and information about them is handled with appropriate confidentiality.(NMS 9) • Parents and children are able to complain if they are unhappy with any aspect of the centre. They are confident that any complaint will be taken seriously, investigated and addressed without delay and they will be kept informed of the progress.(NMS 10) • The welfare of children is promoted, children are protected from abuse, and an appropriate response is made to any allegation or suspicion of abuse.(NMS 11) • Families are protected from abuse, neglect and self-harm.(NMS 12) • All significant events relating to the protection of children or vulnerable adults within the centre are notified by the registered person to the

p.11

The intended outcomes for these standards are:

appropriate authorities.(NMS 13) • There is careful selection and vetting of all staff and anyone else resident on the premises.(NMS 15) • Parents and children stay in accommodation that provides physical safety and security.(NMS 22) • Parents and children enjoy a level of comfort and security within the centre based on mutual respect and an understanding of what may have an adverse effect on other residents.(NMS 8)

p.11

JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for the following standard(s):

9,10,11,12,15 & 22 The outcome of these standard was good.

p.11

JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for the following standard(s):

Parents and children were adequately protected in the Centre.

p.11

EVIDENCE:

Two single parents and their babies were resident at the time of the inspection visit though one parent was leaving the same day. Staff said relationships between the two service users had been cordial though they had mostly spent their time following their own programmes of work or in their own, separate accommodation within the main house. Staff were observed to remain professional and respectful in their interaction with service users and this was Living Springs DS0000047184.V308739.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 12 reciprocated most of the time. Confidentiality was upheld by staff at all times throughout the inspection and discussion with the service user elicited that they had no concerns in this respect.

p.11

EVIDENCE:

The Manager said all service users received a copy of the Service User Handbook when admitted which explained the Centres’ complaints procedure. This was confirmed by the service user. The service user said she felt able to raise any concerns with staff. She said she had not felt it necessary to make a formal complaint as day to day issues or disagreements were dealt with quickly by staff and she had been happy with the outcome. A central complaints record continued to be maintained by the Manager. No formal complaints were recorded since the last inspection.

p.12

EVIDENCE:

The Manager was a qualified Social Worker who had considerable knowledge and experience of child protection issues. She remained conversant with local child protection procedures though there was a need for her to appraise herself of changes in legislation resulting in the formation of ‘Safeguarding Boards’.

p.12

EVIDENCE:

It is recommended the Manager acquaints herself with legislative changes in safeguarding children.

p.12

EVIDENCE:

The Manager said all newly appointed staff received basic child protection training as part of their Induction programme. Residential Family Workers also completed a Child Protection module as part of their NVQ qualification. A previous recommendation had been that staff should receive ‘refresher’ child protection training on an annual basis. The last, full-staff training session had taken place in October, 2006 though a list of staff training showed eight members of the whole staff team had still to complete their annual, ‘refresher’ training in this area.

p.12

EVIDENCE:

It is recommended steps are taken to ensure all staff attend ‘refresher’ child protection training on an annual basis.

p.12

EVIDENCE:

Discussion with a senior residential family worker elicited that she was conversant with the possible indicators of abuse and the referral process. No child protection issues were raised or observed during the inspection and records showed any concerns had been reported to appropriate agencies and interested persons.

p.12

EVIDENCE:

Two staff files were looked at, one for a long serving member of staff and one for a newly appointed person, both Residential Family Workers. Both files were in good order. An application form had been completed by both members of staff and two references had been gained for each. However, one reference had been gained after the member of staff had started working. CRB (Criminal Records Bureau) ‘enhanced checks’ had been completed for both and a copy of a relevant qualification and training certificates were held on one file. No interview notes were kept on file so it was not possible to assess the Living Springs DS0000047184.V308739.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 13 robustness of the interview process. For example, whether gaps in employment had been pursued.

p.12

EVIDENCE:

It is recommended the recruitment and selection process is reviewed.

p.13

EVIDENCE:

A visitors’ book was kept in the main hallway. All visitors were observed to be asked for evidence of identity if they were not already known to staff.

p.13

EVIDENCE:

Fire safety records were looked at. A fire risk assessment had been completed in March, 2006. There was evidence weekly fire alarm bell tests were being carried out on a regular basis. There had been an annual service of the smoke detectors in October, 2006 and records showed the detectors had been checked on a monthly basis prior to this. Fire fighting equipment was in place and some monthly checks were recorded though there was a gap during the period from April to September, 2006.

p.13

EVIDENCE:

It is recommended regular checks are carried out on fire fighting equipment.

p.13

EVIDENCE:

Fire drills and/or evacuations were taking place on a monthly basis, at varying times of the day. However, there did not appear to have been any night-time drills within the last year. That is, between 10.00pm and 08.00am. This was also noted in the last inspection report. Whilst records clearly showed the date and time of drills/evacuations, it was not always easy to ascertain the names of staff who had been involved. The names of staff who had worked in the residential provision over the four week period prior to the inspection were checked against the records of drills and so on. There was evidence that all but one of the team had completed fire safety training in the last twelve months, whilst another two were two months over updating their annual training. However, half of the residential staff team had not been involved in a fire drill/evacuation in the last year.

p.13

EVIDENCE:

It is required all staff are involved in fire drills and evacuations in accordance with guidance by Staffordshire Fire and Rescue Service. Living Springs DS0000047184.V308739.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 14

p.13

The intended outcomes for these standards are:

• Parents and children are admitted to and leave the centre in a planned and sensitive manner.(NMS 2) • Children and their parents have their needs assessed and written plans outline how the assessment will be undertaken.(NMS 3) • Parents and children using the centre feel well-informed and party to decisions made.(NMS 6) • Parents and children enjoy sound relationships with staff based on honesty and mutual respect(NMS 7)

p.14

JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for the following standard(s):

3 & 6 The outcome of these standards was good.

p.14

JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for the following standard(s):

Placement Plans had been developed in consultation with both service users, which addressed their needs and those of their babies.

p.14

EVIDENCE:

Referrals to the Centre tended to be made either by a Court or Social Worker who specified the purpose of the placement. However, individuals could also arrange their own placements. Both service users’ files were seen to contain an individual Placement Plan, based on their circumstances and needs. One service user said they had been involved in the development of their Plan and met regularly with their ‘Keyworker’ – a specified member of the staff team - to determine if they had met their objectives or what work was needed to attain it. The Plans included arrangements for the care of their babies, clearly outlining staffs’ and parents’ responsibilities. Risk assessments had been completed for both service users and their babies.

p.14

EVIDENCE:

Staff were using a Department of Health document called the ‘Framework for Assessment’ to guide their observations and recording. One service user said staff kept them appraised about progress or otherwise with the objectives in their Plan and their views were included in daily records and reports. There was evidence the Manager was monitoring records and reports on service users, to ensure comments were balanced and based on direct observation.

p.14

EVIDENCE:

Staff said the individual views of service users continued to be gained, not only in relation to their daily lives but also about the operation of the home. This Living Springs DS0000047184.V308739.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 15 was supported by one of the service users. The consultation process tended to be informal though the Manager was able to demonstrate that service users’ comments or suggestions about possible improvements were taken seriously and acted upon. Living Springs DS0000047184.V308739.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 16

p.14

The intended outcomes for these standards are:

• Parents and children live in pleasant, well designed and maintained surroundings providing sufficient space and adequate facilities to meet their needs.(NMS 19) • Parents and children enjoy homely accommodation, decorated, furnished and maintained to a high standard, providing adequate facilities for their use.(NMS 20) • Shared spaces complement and supplement residents’ private rooms.(NMS 21)

p.16

JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for the following standard(s):

19,20 & 21 The outcome of these standards was good.

p.16

JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for the following standard(s):

The accommodation was homely in appearance and well equipped to meet the needs of parents and their children.

p.16

EVIDENCE:

The house was a large, detached Victorian property which retained many of its’ period features. There was a busy staff office sited on the ground floor but business conducted from the office was not seen to intrude on residents’ daily routines or privacy. A number of rooms on the ground floor were designated for ‘supervised contact’ visits which the Centre provided as another part of its business. These rooms were observed to be in frequent use throughout office hours till early evening. However, visitors to the home did not have access to communal areas which the residents used.

p.16

EVIDENCE:

Arrangements for families residing at the Centre varied according to the number, ages and needs of parents and children. At the time of the inspection, both parents had their own bedroom and separate lounge on the first floor. The two ‘flats’ were separated by doors leading off the main landing. The accommodation for both parents was looked at. Both areas were seen to be adequately furnished and were in good decorative order.

p.16

EVIDENCE:

Shared areas for residents included the kitchen, dining room, laundry area and an upstairs bathroom. Residents were expected to self-cater and separate cupboards were provided in the kitchen for food storage and separate shelves within a large fridge and freezer were set aside to facilitate this. Separate Living Springs DS0000047184.V308739.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 17 preparation and cooking areas were also provided. The kitchen was well- equipped. There was adequate dining furniture to accommodate eight people and ‘high chairs’ were available for young children. Two washing machines were provided for use in a room leading off the kitchen and there was a covered porch by the back door for hanging and drying clothes. The shared bathroom was sited on the first floor. No problems were raised about access to the bathroom or lack of hot water when needed.

p.16

EVIDENCE:

A covered patio area at the back of the house was designated as a smoking area for residents and visitors. The grounds were spacious and provided safe play areas for children. A large number of items of play equipment were available to families including wooden, adventure play structures, trampoline, play house, bikes and so on. A portion of the play area had been covered with plastic mesh and re-grassed to provide a safe place for children to ride bikes and scooters. However, some loose items such as plastic piping, string ‘ties’, broken slates and so on were observed around the garden area.

p.17

EVIDENCE:

There was a need to ensure regular checks were undertaken of the garden area and items removed which were likely to pose an unacceptable risk to young children. It is recommended this is actioned.

p.17

EVIDENCE:

Play equipment was also available inside the house, suitable for a wide age range of children. Living Springs DS0000047184.V308739.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 18

p.17

The intended outcomes for these standards are:

• Parents and children who use the centre know what they can expect, how they will be treated, how the centre operates, and have had this information in written form prior to admission.(NMS 1) • Parents’ progress is recorded to reflect their ability to care for the children in a safe manner, promoting their welfare.(NMS 5) • Parents and children receive the care and services they need from competent staff.(NMS 14) • Staff are sufficient in number, experience and qualification to understand the needs of parents and children and who are able to respond appropriately when required.(NMS 16) • Parents and children receive a service from staff who are themselves supported and guided in safeguarding and promoting the children’s welfare.(NMS 17) • Staff are trained and enabled to carry out the role to which they are appointed.(NMS 18) • Parents and children enjoy the stability of an efficiently run service and purchasers have confidence that they are getting value for money.(NMS

p.18

The intended outcomes for these standards are:

23) • The service’s work with parents and children is continually adapted in the light of information about how it is operating.(NMS 24) • There are adequate records of both the staff and families using the service.(NMS 25)

p.18

JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for the following standard(s):

1,14,16 & 24 The outcome of these standards was good.

p.18

JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for the following standard(s):

There was efficient and effective management of the Centre. Information was provided to residents about the operation of the Centre. Staff held relevant qualifications and continued to receive on-going training.

p.18

EVIDENCE:

One service user was spoken with during the inspection. She was familiar with the work of the Centre as she had been a visitor on a regular basis for some years prior to her admission for a residential period. A copy of the Centres’ Statement of Purpose and last inspection report was noted to be displayed on a notice board in the main hallway. One of the service users said she had Living Springs DS0000047184.V308739.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 19 received a ‘Residents’ Handbook’ on admission which contained details about the daily routine, house rules, complaints procedure and so on. She was satisfied she had been given adequate information.

p.18

EVIDENCE:

The main focus of the work undertaken by the Centre was in providing ‘outreach’ support to families – that is, within their own homes - and in conducting supervised visits for children both on and off the premises. However, members of the team also worked within the residential provision of the Centre when there were placements. The staff team was comprised mostly of females.

p.19

EVIDENCE:

The ‘family support‘ team included staff who held qualifications in care and education. The Manager held a social work qualification and NVQ (National Vocational Qualification) Level IV certificate in management. (She was continuing to undertake post-qualification training). Eight members of the team had completed Level III in child care whilst another two held a NNEB (National Nursery Examination Board) certificate. Four staff were qualified teachers. Other members of the team held relevant qualifications or had had experience of working in related fields. The Manager said she had also recently appointed a number of ‘bank’ staff who were in the process of completing their Induction programme. The team were ably supported by six administrative staff based in the Centre.

p.19

EVIDENCE:

Staff continued to receive on-going training. During 2006 this had included Cultural Needs and Awareness, Health and Safety Awareness and Bonding and Attachment Theory and Issues. Staff were to receive training the day after the inspection in ‘Life Story’ work with children.

p.19

EVIDENCE:

The weekly rosters for the four weeks preceding the inspection were looked at. This covered the start of the residential period for two service users and their babies. Records showed two staff had been deployed each day, both during waking hours and the night. Staff were sleeping-in at night as it had been assessed that a waking person was not required. Staffing levels at the time of the inspection were observed to be sufficient to enable staff to effectively carry out individual observations and work with both service users.

p.19

EVIDENCE:

The Manager continued to monitor a range of records to enable her to quickly identify any patterns or issues which could effect the quality of the service offered to families. The Manager was seen to be accessible to staff and she provided clear leadership. She was actively involved in reviewing the assessment of individual service users and met with them regularly during their placement to ensure their needs and objectives in their Placement Plans were fully met. However, her responsibilities since the last inspection had increased due to the expansion of the service on site. A building adjoining the main house had been converted into independent living accommodation for ‘mothers and babies’. The new project and existing service were placing onerous demands on the Managers time and some slippage was noted in the, Living Springs DS0000047184.V308739.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 20 usually, robust quality assurance systems. Some developments identified by

p.19

EVIDENCE:

the Manager in the previous inspection had also been delayed. There was a need for the Manager to deploy some of her duties to enable her to focus on quality assurance and continuing development of the service. Living Springs DS0000047184.V308739.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 21

p.20

SCORING OF OUTCOMES

This page summarises the assessment of the extent to which the National Minimum Standards for Residential Family Centres have been met and uses the following scale.

p.21

SCORING OF OUTCOMES

4 Standard Exceeded (Commendable) 3 Standard Met (No Shortfalls) 2 Standard Almost Met (Minor Shortfalls) 1 Standard Not Met (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

p.21

SCORING OF OUTCOMES

STAYING SAFE ACHIEVING ECONOMIC WELLBEING Standard No Score Standard No Score 8 X 19 3 9 3 20 3 10 3 21 3 11 3 12 3 13 X 15 3 22 3

p.21

SCORING OF OUTCOMES

ENJOYING & ACHIEVING MANAGEMENT Standard No Score Standard No Score No NMS are mapped to this outcome 1 3 5 X MAKING A POSITIVE 14 3 CONTRIBUTION 16 3 Standard No Score 17 X 2 X 18 X 3 3 23 X 6 3 24 3 7 X 25 X Living Springs DS0000047184.V308739.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 22 Are there any outstanding requirements from the last inspection? NO

p.21

STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS

This section sets out the actions, which must be taken so that the registered person/s meets the Care Standards Act 2000, Residential Family Centres Regulations 2002 and the National Minimum Standards. The Registered Provider(s) must comply with the given timescales.

p.22

STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS

No. Standard Regulation Requirement Timescale for action 1. RFC22 22 (i) (e) All staff are involved in fire drills and evacuations in accordance with Staffordshire Fire and Rescue Service guidance. 31/12/06

p.22

RECOMMENDATIONS

These recommendations relate to National Minimum Standards and are seen as good practice for the Registered Provider/s to consider carrying out.

p.22

RECOMMENDATIONS

No. Refer to Standard Good Practice Recommendations

p.22

RECOMMENDATIONS

1. RFC4 Staff are reminded to ensure all important documents are dated. 2. RFC11 The Manager acquaints herself with legislative changes in safeguarding children. 3. RFC11 All staff attend ‘refresher’ child protection training on an annual basis. 4. RFC15 The staff recruitment and selection process is reviewed. 5. RFC22 Regular checks are carried out on fire fighting equipment. 6. RFC19 Regular checks of the garden area are undertaken and items presenting an unacceptable level of risk are removed. Living Springs DS0000047184.V308739.R01.S.doc Version 5.2 Page 23

p.22

Commission for Social Care Inspection

Stafford Office Dyson Court Staffordshire Technology Park Beaconside Stafford ST18 0ES

p.23

Commission for Social Care Inspection

National Enquiry Line: 0845 015 0120 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

p.23