Setting

St Michael's Fellowship

Announced 18 April 2005 The Commission for Social Care Inspection aims to:

p.1

St Michael's Fellowship

• 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

St Michael's Fellowship

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 St Michael's Fellowship Version 1.10 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

St Michael's Fellowship

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

St Michael's Fellowship

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

St Michael's Fellowship

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. St Michael's Fellowship Version 1.10 Page 4

p.3

manager (if applicable)

Type of registration RFC Residential Family Centre

p.4

of places

St Michael's Fellowship Version 1.10 Page 5

p.5

Conditions of registration:

The maximum number of adult members of families residing at any one time shall not exceed six.

p.5

Conditions of registration:

Before a fifth family is admitted, the registered person shall notify the registration authority of the additional staffing arrangements to be put in place.

p.5

Brief Description of the Service:

‘46’, a residential family Centre run by St Michaels, is an establishment that provides accommodation, assessment and support for children and their parents. The parent’s capacity to respond to the children’s needs and to safeguard their welfare is assessed and the parents are given such advice and guidance as is considered necessary to enable them to do so. Parents are therefore ‘looking after’ their own children whilst their ‘parenting skills’ are assessed by the staff team. The stated aims include ‘ providing fair, objective and comprehensive assessments of families to assist local authorities and the courts in making decisions for the welfare of the child’. Centre staff seek to make formal counselling available for parents who may benefit from it, but do not provide counselling themselves. The home manager and staff team undertake formal twelve week assessments. Final reports aim to identify both

p.5

Brief Description of the Service:

risk and protective factors and make recommendations for after-care. An ‘eclectic’ approach based on the individual needs of families has been adopted, using a variety of theoretical models, concepts and ideas for ‘interventions with families’ that ‘place the child first’. St Michael's Fellowship Version 1.10 Page 6

p.5

SUMMARY

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

p.6

SUMMARY

This inspection took place over 10 hours and was carried out as the annually required inspection of registered family centres.

p.6

SUMMARY

A full tour of the premises took place and staff and care records were inspected. Four of the staff, and five of the adult service users were spokenwith.

p.6

What the service does well:

The centre has a group of staff who have worked at the centre for a number of years. They are keen to develop both individually and as a team. Service users spoken to felt that staff had supported them well and offered them advice and encouragement, in ways suitable to their individual needs in a comfortable and homely environment.

p.6

What the service does well:

Both the centre manager and the charitable organisation that runs it acknowledge the fact that the assessment can be stressful for both families and staff, and steps have been taken to alleviate this. Emphasis has been placed on evaluating and improving the service in a systematic way that includes the input of service users and examining things that have not gone well.

p.6

What has improved since the last inspection?

A programme of redecoration and refurbishment has improved the physical environment and there are plans in place to refurbish the communal kitchen. Systematic recordings of the names of visitors to the centre are now documented in a central log and personnel records have been auditted by the responsible individual to ensure that all documents required by legislation are in place for each member of staff. Window opening restrictors, missing in some areas of the home during the previous inspection, have been replaced.

p.6

What has improved since the last inspection?

Advanced child protection training has been identified and commissioned for the centre staff and has been undertaken by most. The range of policies has been increased to include medication and arrangements if a resident parent is in hospital.

p.6

What they could do better:

The centre must do more to communicate the limitations of the centre's responsibility to arrange education for children to the placing authorities and St Michael's Fellowship Version 1.10 Page 7 all professionals involved during pre-placement planning, it would also be helpful if they provided some information about local schools and the school admissions procedures.

p.6

What they could do better:

The centre manager has suggested that advice and input from a consultant psychologist would be of benefit to the staff team and to people who use the service as some of the service users have a learning disability. Placing authorities would also welcome this additional input.

p.7

What they could do better:

More must be done to improve bathroom safety and prevent potential scalding injuries (by regulating hot water temperatures).

p.7

What they could do better:

Staff should also receive specific training to better equip them to deal with potentially challenging situations (i.e. de-escalation and breakaway techniques and crisis management).

p.7

What they could do better:

Please contact the provider for advice of actions taken in response to this inspection. The full report of this inspection is available from enquiries@csci.gsi.gov.uk or by contacting your local CSCI office. St Michael's Fellowship Version 1.10 Page 8

p.7

CONTENTS

Enjoying and Achieving - There are no NMS under this outcome

p.8

CONTENTS

Statutory Requirements Identified During the Inspection St Michael's Fellowship Version 1.10 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 standard(s) 4

Families have good access to local health care services leisure facilities in the area. The centre provides a well-equipped, pleasant home and garden. Access to education and employment are not automatically provided and, if required, must be arranged by the placing authority prior to admission. This is satisfactory, given that families generally only stay for a maximum of 12 weeks, but could be better explained to placing authorities and children’s guardians before admission. Centre staff promoted healthcare and maintained good records of health issues, although the storage of medication in the staff office must be more secure to ensure the safety of children.

p.9

EVIDENCE:

Both adults and children were able to register temporarily with a local GP practice. This enabled them to access appointments with doctors, regular immunisation programmes and health screening as necessary. The practice health visitor liased with the parents, and provided centre staff with advice and information, to ensure that children’s’ health needs were identified and met. Dental treatment was also available locally. Family placement records included details of any ongoing medical issues and child development checks. Placing authorities indicated that there was a need for the ongoing input of a consultant psychologist, and this would be a valuable addition to the centres resources. The centre manager also indicated that this input would be valuable and aims to identify a consultant psychologist to provide it The services of a consultant psychiatrist are already in place. (see recommendation 4).

p.9

EVIDENCE:

Each parent service user had been required to sign a consent form for medical treatment and first aid provided by home staff to either the parent or child accommodated in an emergency situation. Written entries in the First Aid log indicated that staff kept careful records of any first aid administered. All except one of the permanent team hold the First Aid at Work qualification. St Michael's Fellowship Version 1.10 Page 10 Each family room was equipped with a safe lockable area to store medication, and staff reported that although they monitored medication and offered advice, they did not administer medication to anyone directly. There was also a small medication cabinet in the staff office, used to store a supply of ‘over the counter’ medication. The cabinet was fitted high on the wall, and was inaccessible to children. However, the lock was inadequate as it opened with the edge of a coin and it was left open during the inspection visit.

p.9

EVIDENCE:

Safer storage would be provided if the cabinet were replaced with one that required a key. (See requirement 1)

p.10

EVIDENCE:

As the assessment of parenting lasts only 12 weeks, and the majority of children using the service have been below school age, there are no established links with local schools. The home manager indicated that school placements would have to be arranged by the placing authority before admission. As placements were relatively short, placing authorities may opt to provide transport for school aged children to enable them to continue attend school elsewhere. This is a satisfactory arrangement other than the need to fully inform placing authorities of the centres expectations in this area at the point of the families’ referral. Comments in pre-inspection surveys completed by placing authorities, service users and children’s guardians were positive although the professionals involved with one family indicated that there was a need for information about local schools and expectation of responsibility to

p.10

EVIDENCE:

arrange education to be better explained before a placement commenced (see recommendation 1).

p.10

EVIDENCE:

Families have access to local leisure facilities, although restrictions were in place in regard to the amount of time spent out of the centre, to allow staff adequate opportunity to undertake the assessment and also to ensure child protection. The initial two-weeks observations were more thorough to enable centre staff to assess risks. However, these restrictions were reduced as the assessment progressed, providing there were no child safety concerns.

p.10

EVIDENCE:

A large rear garden and communal lounge with a television and videos provided families with opportunity for home entertainment. The gardens were particularly well maintained and pleasant, providing families with an area to relax and outdoor play equipment. On the day of the inspection some parents, enjoying the good weather in the garden, commented that they particularly liked this area of the centre.

p.10

EVIDENCE:

Parents are provided with support, advice and encouragement to develop their skills in planned play sessions with their children, this included video recording play sessions on occasion so that a parent could examine the session afterwards with a member of staff, to discuss areas that had gone well and St Michael's Fellowship Version 1.10 Page 11 how play could be improved. Parents confirmed that they were informed of the video play sessions beforehand and staff advised that recordings were destroyed after discussion. There was also play-room available with toys suitable for younger children. St Michael's Fellowship Version 1.10 Page 12

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.12

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.12

JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for standard(s) 8, 9, 10, 11, 12,

Service users have been protected by the centres close monitoring of interfamily and family dynamics. Parents views have been actively sought and recorded, and action taken to ensure the appropriate handling of complaints and confidential information. Considerable efforts have been made to ensure children and vulnerable adults are protected, although staff should be better trained to deal with potentially challenging situations. St Michael's Fellowship Version 1.10 Page 13

p.12

EVIDENCE:

The centre manager and staff were observed to be handling a situation of potential homophobia between parent groups with tact and diligence. Parents commented that regular house meetings helped to resolve any ‘in-house’ differences. House rules were in place and had been communicated to each adult family member. Only Centre staff were permitted to open the front door to visitors, and a record of the names of each visitor had also been maintained by Centre staff.

p.13

EVIDENCE:

Rules around visitors and their expected conduct had been communicated to each adult family member, as part of the placement planning. Signed agreement to abide by these rules had been obtained. These restrictions were in place to ensure security and protection for all.

p.13

EVIDENCE:

The home had developed a policy on the use of physical restraint, which was not routinely used. Although a requirement for Centre staff to be trained in crisis de-escalation, breakaway techniques and the safe restraint of children had not been fully addressed, staff consulation has been undertaken and an appropriate training package was being organised. This training would be of great benefit to Centre staff, parents and children in an emergency or crisis situation. (see requirement 2)

p.13

EVIDENCE:

Parents were observed to have access to the previous days report notes completed by Centre staff. After reading them a parent was able to make comments to be included on the report before signing them (centre staff provided assistance with reading the notes if appropriate). Both the centre and each parent kept a copy of each day's notes. Parents commented that staff knocked the door before entering their bedroom and their incoming post was deposited into a mailbox in the hallway. A payphone was situated in the reception area alcove, allowing parents a degree of privacy whilst making calls.

p.13

EVIDENCE:

Each parent had a key to their bedroom door, although staff requested the bedroom doors remained open until children were asleep in the initial days of the assessment, whilst a night-time risk assessment of child safety was completed.

p.13

EVIDENCE:

Information given to parents when they arrived at the centre included detailed information on how to make a complaint. Parents confirmed that centre staff informed them of how to make a complaint when they arrived in the centre, both verbally and in writing, and that they felt able to do so if need be. The record of complaints was checked regularly by the centre manager and responsible individual, although only one had been recorded. St Michael's Fellowship Version 1.10 Page 14 There were clear procedures in place for responding to allegations or suspicions of abuse, either by staff, or by parents, or by other children in the centre. The centre had a clear policy on ‘Child Protection’ and ‘Arrangements for protecting children accommodated on the unit’ were in place. Routine links had been established with other agencies concerned with child protection, eg the placing authority, schools, hospitals, general practitioners and the centres

p.13

EVIDENCE:

health visitor and centre staff did not work in isolation from them. ACPC guidelines were in place and some staff had recently undertaken extensive child protection training, commissioned from an external trainer by the organisation, for which accreditation was being sought (the course is recognised as giving credits towards an NVQ level 3 and by the regional Post Qualifying Consortium as giving credits towards the PQ1). Adult protection policy and procedures were also in place.

p.14

EVIDENCE:

A record of notifications made was maintained in the centre. Pre-inspection surveys completed by placing authorities provided evidence that the centre had communicated significant events and changes, enabling social workers to attend emergency meetings in between scheduled reviews as required. However a formal procedure for notifications made under Schedule 5 was not in place and this will be of use to Centre staff to ensure that appropriate notifications are made in a timely fashion. Procedures in the area of notifying all appropriate involved parties of significant events had been noted, both by the centre manager and others involved, as an area that should be improved. A useful list of who was to be notified of significant events was available and was in line with regulation, however a formal procedure identifying who should make the notification would be of use. (see recommendation 5).

p.14

EVIDENCE:

The responsible individual has audited all staff recruitment records to ensure that all of the required documents are in place (i.e. enhanced police checks, detailed work histories and evidence of qualification).

p.14

EVIDENCE:

Care had been taken to maintain a safe physical environment, with regular checks on gas and electrical equipment. Although fire evacuation drills had been held with the required frequency fire alarm call point tests had not. (see requirement 3).

p.14

EVIDENCE:

Centre staff used a large bunch of keys to gain access to rooms in the centre. A requirement to organise these keys in a way that centre staff could gain swift access to rooms in an emergency, had been partly addressed by the centre manager requesting a master–key system to be installed. (see recommendation 2). St Michael's Fellowship Version 1.10 Page 15

p.14

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 70)

p.15

JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for standard(s) 2, 3, 6 & 7

Placement planning is thorough and excellent systems are in place to ensure that parent service users receive feedback about the progress of the assessment from staff equipped with extensive communication skills.

p.15

EVIDENCE:

Referred families were considered during a selection meeting, with representations and supporting assessment documentation from the placing social work and health teams being made to the St Michael’s social worker. If the centre was able to offer an appropriate service the family were then offered the opportunity to visit the home to meet other service users and ask questions before accepting the offer of a placement.

p.15

EVIDENCE:

During meetings with the family, ‘a placement agreement’ was devised, detailing the purpose and scope of the residential assessment of parenting skill and capacity. The centres expectations of how time would be spent in the home and expectations of behaviour were clearly laid out in the Service Users Guide and ‘ house rules’ supplied during the process of admission.

p.15

EVIDENCE:

Written placement plans were reviewed weekly and communicated to centre staff and families using a particularly concise and focused format. Parents commented that they received regular feedback and that centre staff had taken care to provide information in accessible formats suitable to the needs of the individual family member. St Michael's Fellowship Version 1.10 Page 16 Centre staff were observed to relate to each family member with professionalism. Parent service users commented that the centre staff were helpful and gave good advice. St Michael's Fellowship Version 1.10 Page 17

p.15

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.17

JUDGEMENT – we looked at outcomes for standard(s) 19, 20 &21

The centre is pleasant and able to meet the needs of the families. Communal space is limited but adequate and is supplemented by large rear garden. Family rooms are homely. The centre manager is planning kitchen refurbishment carefully to ensure maximum benefit to centre users. Hot water safety is a continuing concern.

p.17

EVIDENCE:

The centre is large and indistinguishable from other homes in the area. Although the kitchen is relatively small, a complete refit is planned with thought being given to making facilities more accessible to more than one family at a time. The centre is generally well maintained. Communal areas are clean and pleasant. Service users also have access to front and rear gardens, complete with colourful planting and play equipment.

p.17

EVIDENCE:

Family rooms were decorated and furnished to a high standard, each with access to a bathroom. One of the shower facilities was broken and must be replaced, and hot water temperatures must be regulated to ensure that service users (especially children) are not scalded. (a previous requirement, see requirement 4).

p.17

EVIDENCE:

A member of centre staff is appointed as a health and safety coordinator, and undertakes regular inspection of the premises. St Michael's Fellowship Version 1.10 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 standard(s) 1, 5, 14, 16, 17,

The Centre management team are suitably qualified and experienced and have provided effective leadership and supervision to staff. Centre staff, who have qualifications and experience appropriate to their role, have maintained good records of the service they have provided and have made efforts to ensure that these records are accessible to the adults being assessed. Further work is required to ensure that staff training already undertaken equates to the required standard.

p.18

EVIDENCE:

St Michael's Fellowship Version 1.10 Page 19 The homes statement of purpose contained all of the required information although the centre manager has indicated that this document should be more widely distributed to professionals during placement planning. (see recommendation 3)

p.19

EVIDENCE:

The service user's guide is informative and produced in a format accessible to service users with a degree of learning disability.

p.19

EVIDENCE:

The progress of parents is recorded on a daily basis and reflects their ability to safely care for their child/ren. Daily progress reports had been distributed to the adult family members, who each received a copy, the centre had maintained copies of these chronological records securely in the staff office, ensuring a secure and private record.

p.19

EVIDENCE:

Examination of the staffing information contained in the centres ‘Statement of Purpose’ and information supplied in the pre-inspection questionnaire completed by the centre manager confirmed that staff with suitable training and experience had been employed to work in the centre. The centre manager has a diploma in social work and childcare and other appropriate qualifications. Centre staff also have a wide variety of appropriate qualifications that equip them to meet the needs of the families and the expectations of their posts, including social work, psychology, systemic family therapy, nursing, counselling, advanced child protection, child development, working with learning disabilities and family and community care. As the requirement is that 80% of staff are qualified at Level 3 or equivalent by 2005 the centre must take steps to equate the qualifications already obtained against this standard and, if necessary, address any shortfall.

p.19

EVIDENCE:

A range of additional training had also been provided, although not on all of the topics identified in the National Minimum Standards. (see requirement 6)

p.19

EVIDENCE:

Staff duty rotas indicated adequate staffing levels had been maintained and an accurate record kept of any changes.

p.19

EVIDENCE:

Supervision meetings between the centre home manager and staff had been held monthly and a written record kept on file. Staff with key-working responsibility or a particular issues to deal with were usually supervised more frequently (i.e. fortnightly). Staff with whom the inspector had contact confirmed that informal supervisions were also available in between times and that they were clear about the lines of accountability within the centres organisational structure. Written guidance and Policy was available in all areas identified in NMS 17.3. External specialist guidance and support to staff was also in place in regard to group dynamics and team development. This guidance was provided in meeting forums and was scheduled on the duty rotas examined. St Michael's Fellowship Version 1.10 Page 20 The residential family centre was one of a group of services operated by an independent charity, St Michael’s Fellowship, an organisation that has been

p.19

EVIDENCE:

The centre manager confirmed that she had sufficient budget information to manage the home. Discussion during the inspection indicated that the centre had good relationships with neighbours in the local and wider community. There was overall evidence that the registered persons had maintained adequate records, exercised effective leadership and undertaken ongoing evaluation of the service provided by the centre. St Michael's Fellowship Version 1.10 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. Where there is no score against a standard it has not been looked at during this inspection.

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 2 19 3 9 3 20 2 10 3 21 3 11 3 12 3 13 3 15 3 22 2

p.21

SCORING OF OUTCOMES

ENJOYING & ACHIEVING MANAGEMENT Standard No Score Standard No Score No NMS are mapped to this outcome 1 3 5 3 MAKING A POSITIVE 14 2 CONTRIBUTION 16 3 Standard No Score 17 3 2 3 18 2 3 3 23 3 6 4 24 3 7 3 25 3 St Michael's Fellowship Version 1.10 Page 22 Are there any outstanding requirements from the last inspection? Yes

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. RFC4 11(2) The medication cabinet in the staff office should be replaced with a cabinet that can be locked securely with a key. The cabinet must be kept locked at all times. 10/06/05

p.22

STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS

2. RFC8 11(5)(6) Staff must be trained in anger management and de-escalation procedures and on the use of safe physical restraint of children. Unmet previous requirement . 31/08/05

p.22

STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS

3. RFC22 22(1)(v) Fire detection equipment must be tested at suitable intervals (fire alarm call points). 10/06/05

p.22

STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS

11(4)(a) Hot water accessible to very young children, or people with disabilities which place them at risk from excessively hot water, is maintained at between 41 and 45 degrees centigrade at tap and other outlets accessible to them. unmet previous requirement. 08/07/05

p.22

STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS

5. RFC14 15(a)(b) The Centre must have a minimum of 80% of its care staff qualified at level 3 or equivalent in the caring for children and young people NVQ. 30/12/05

p.22

STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS

6. RFC18 17(5)(a) Training in all areas listed in NMS 18.5 must be provided for staff (restraint, fire precautions, HIV and Aids and infection control). 25/11/05 St Michael's Fellowship Version 1.10 Page 23 7. 8.

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.23

RECOMMENDATIONS

No. Refer to Standard Good Practice Recommendations

p.23

RECOMMENDATIONS

1. RFC4 The centres expectation that placing authorities are responsible for arranging education and temporary school admission should be clearly stated in pre-admission information supplied to purchasers and childrens guardians. Information about local schools should also be supplied. 2. RFC22 A master key system should be installed to enable staff to gain swift access to all areas of the centre in an emergency. 3. RFC1 The centres statement of purpose should be distributed to all professionals involved with a referred family before admission. 4. RFC 4 The centre should retain the services of a consultant psychologist. 5. RFC13 A formal procedure for notifying the appropriate bodies listed under column 2 of Schedule 5 of the Registered Family Centre regulations should be devised. St Michael's Fellowship Version 1.10 Page 24

p.23

Commission for Social Care Inspection

46. Loman Street London SE1 0EH tel 0207 803 4960 fax 0207 803 4996

p.24

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.24