Setting

Living Springs DS0000047184.V268902.R01.S.doc Version 5.0 Page 1 RESIDENTIAL FAMILY CENTRE

p.1

DY7 6QY

Lead Inspector Elizabeth Taylor Announced Inspection 12 December 2005 10:00 Living Springs DS0000047184.V268902.R01.S.doc Version 5.0 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.V268902.R01.S.doc Version 5.0 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.V268902.R01.S.doc Version 5.0 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.V268902.R01.S.doc Version 5.0 Page 5

p.5

Conditions of registration:

1. Staffing arrangements are adequate to meet the needs of families 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. Families with identified needs, referred by social services (families excluded from placement are as identified in conditions of registration) 4. 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. 5. 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. 6. Families will not be admitted where there is a history of violent/aggressive behaviour towards social workers, staff and/or other

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.V268902.R01.S.doc Version 5.0 Page 6

p.5

SUMMARY

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

p.6

SUMMARY

The inspection took place on a weekday, from mid-morning through to the evening. The Inspector met with the Provider/Manager of the service and spoke with staff on duty. Three service users, all adult, were spoken with. A tour was made of the accommodation and grounds. Various records maintained in the home were looked at. The Inspector also observed interaction between staff and service users.

p.6

What the service does well:

The aims of residential placements were clearly defined in individual contracts developed in conjunction between placing authorities, parents and the Manager of the home. There was consistency in the application of the assessment process; staff had been trained in using the ‘Framework for Assessment’ documentation and there was close management monitoring throughout the process.

p.6

What the service does well:

The accommodation offered a comfortable environment for residents, consistent with good standard, domestic style living.

p.6

What the service does well:

There was robust management oversight of the operation of the home. The Manager had implemented effective monitoring systems which enabled her to quickly identify any patterns or issues which could effect the quality of the service offered to families. The Manager continued to review and develop aspects of the service to ensure a high standard of service was maintained.

p.6

What the service does well:

Staff deployment was adequate to meet the needs of families and ensure the safety of children resident in the Centre. Staff held a variety of qualifications relevant to the work they were undertaking with families. There was a good level of administrative support for the Manager and staff.

p.6

What the service does well:

Service users were positive about the service which they were receiving. They were clear about the aims of their placement and felt they were consulted about the assessment process and about matters affecting their daily lives whilst living at the Centre. Staff were observed to have established positive working relationships with service users, based on mutual respect. Living Springs DS0000047184.V268902.R01.S.doc Version 5.0 Page 7

p.6

What has improved since the last inspection?

A more structured parenting course had been developed and implemented. This was commented on positively by two service users. Improvements were noted in case recording; there was greater detail and more analysis of the information gained. Staff were receiving more frequent formal supervision.

p.7

What they could do better:

Some rooms on the ground floor were being used for ‘supervised contact’ for families not resident in the Centre. Whilst this activity was not seen to impact negatively on resident service users at the time of the inspection, the accommodation was reaching capacity level in respect of business conducted on site. There remained a need to ensure the privacy of both visiting families and resident families was not compromised. The Manager had already identified improvements which she wished to effect to the service, which the Inspector supported. It was considered that staff would benefit from receiving some training from a Psychologist, to assist them in understanding aspects of parent/child interaction. Action was already being taken to gain training in this area for staff. Whilst service users said they felt consulted about the assessment process, the Manager was keen to develop a simpler, evaluation

p.7

What they could do better:

form for them to complete throughout the assessment process.

p.7

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.V268902.R01.S.doc Version 5.0 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.V268902.R01.S.doc Version 5.0 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):

There were effective systems in place which ensured the health needs and general well-being of families residing in the Centre were promoted.

p.9

EVIDENCE:

Arrangements had been agreed with a local Doctors practice that service users residing in the Centre would only have to register if they required an appointment. This meant it was less disruptive for families who, generally, did not reside for long periods. Staff were aware of National Health Direct services and Primary Care facilities in the area and could advise service users about how to access them. Service users requiring specialist health services were responsible for making their own appointments but were supported by staff who often transported them to the venue. The Manager said they were able to offer a psychological assessment as part of the overall assessment process. The Centre had a ‘no smoking’ policy and service users were seen to respect this; a porchway at the back of the house tended to be used as a smoking area or service users went for a stroll off site to smoke.

p.9

EVIDENCE:

A family file was looked at. This showed action had been taken to gain the services of a Health Visitor for service users during their stay; there was a record of visits undertaken by the health professional.

p.9

EVIDENCE:

Arrangements for the storage and administration of medication were satisfactory. All medications were kept in a lockable cupboard in the lockable, staff office. However, it was noted there was no facility for the storage of medicines/creams and so on which may need to be kept at a low temperature.

p.9

EVIDENCE:

It is recommended a small fridge is purchased for the specific purpose of storing medication and so on at the correct temperature. This should be placed in a secure area.

p.9

EVIDENCE:

There was a general expectation that parents retained responsibility for administering medication to their own child however, this would be risk Living Springs DS0000047184.V268902.R01.S.doc Version 5.0 Page 10 assessed at the time of their admission. The arrangement for the family at the time of the visit was that the parents had given written consent for staff to administer prescribed medication to their child. Records of the administration of medication were clearly written and each dose of medication was countersigned by both staff administering it and one of the parents.

p.9

EVIDENCE:

Two service users resident at the time of the inspection visit were spoken with. They were complimentary about the ‘parentcraft lessons’ which they were receiving from staff. They said the help they were receiving meant they felt they were ‘learning much faster about parenting knowledge and skills’. Healthy eating for the children was encouraged and formed part of the parenting education programme.

p.10

EVIDENCE:

The grounds around the house were spacious and included a safe play area for children as well as a ‘nature trail’. Inside the house, there were a large number of toys and games which were easily accessible and suitable for a wide age-range of children.

p.10

EVIDENCE:

Parents were also being 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.V268902.R01.S.doc Version 5.0 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)

p.11

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

Effective measures were in place to safeguard children and promote their welfare.

p.11

EVIDENCE:

Documentation provided to parents on their admission clearly stated the few ‘household rules’ which included expectations about mutual respect between residents and staff and between families residing in the Centre.

p.11

EVIDENCE:

There was a family and a single parent residing at the time of the inspection visit. The two parties were observed to choose not to spend much time in one anothers company but relations between them were friendly and respectful when they did meet. Staff were observed to interact with residents in a friendly but professional manner and this was reciprocated. Confidentiality Living Springs DS0000047184.V268902.R01.S.doc Version 5.0 Page 12 was upheld by staff at all times throughout the inspection and neither party expressed any concerns about a breach of their confidentiality.

p.11

EVIDENCE:

Both parties had been provided with a Service User Handbook which explained the Centres’ complaints procedure. The family said they had made an ‘informal’ complaint. Records maintained by the Manager showed the nature of the complaint and action taken to rectify the matter. The family said they were happy with the outcome and felt they had been listened to. No other 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 was conversant with local child protection procedures. The Manager said basic CP training had been provided to all staff, including administrative staff and the Handyperson. Staff were said to receive initial training provided by Dudley Social Services Department whilst on-going, in-house child protection training was provided by the Manager. Residential Family Workers were also said to complete a Child Protection module as part of their NVQ qualification. However, a file for a member of staff appointed five months before the inspection did not show she had received child protection training although she had completed other mandatory training courses as part of her Induction programme.

p.12

EVIDENCE:

Three other staff files were chosen randomly. These showed all three had received child protection training though the timescale varied between 1997 to 2004. It was not clear what arrangements were operating in respect of how frequently staff were expected to undertake ‘refresher’ child protection training.

p.12

EVIDENCE:

It is recommended all staff receive on-going, child protection training. The Centre’s policy and procedure should be reviewed to indicate the frequency which all staff are required to attend ‘refresher’ training in child protection. It is recommended staff training files are maintained up to date.

p.12

EVIDENCE:

Records showed the Manager kept all relevant persons and agencies informed of significant events in the home. Notifications to the Commission have been prompt.

p.12

EVIDENCE:

Four staff files were looked at. All required checks had been carried out; a minimum of two and sometimes three references had been gained on individual staff. All had had a CRB (Criminal records Bureau) check though one had been received two weeks after the member of staff had started their Induction programme; the manager advised that the member of staff would have been shadowing an experienced person and would have had no unsupervised contact with children until after the CRB check had been received. All staff had completed an application form and there was evidence that copies of qualifications had been gained and checks carried out to ensure Living Springs DS0000047184.V268902.R01.S.doc Version 5.0 Page 13 vehicles owned by staff, and used in conjuction with their work, were road- worthy and adequately insured.

p.12

EVIDENCE:

A bound book was maintained in the entrance hall for visitors to sign. Staff were observed to be consistent in asking visitors to sign the log.

p.13

EVIDENCE:

Good attention was being given to health and safety matters. Fire records showed weekly fire alarm tests had been carried out at least once a week from the last inspection. However, there was an oversight in that a test had not been conducted for a 10 day period prior to this inspection. This was brought to the attention of the Manager. Records showed emergency lighting tests were being carried out on a monthly basis and fire fighting equipment was checked each month. Both had had an annual service within the last twelve months. Fire drills and/or evacuations were taking place on a monthly basis and the names of persons involved were recorded on each occasion. However, there did not appear to have been any night-time drills within the last year. Also, it was not possible to be confident that all staff had been involved in a fire drill/evacuation or received fire safety training in the last year. An entry in

p.13

EVIDENCE:

the staff meeting book referred to 21 staff members attending fire safety training in September, 2005 but 13 apologies were given.

p.13

EVIDENCE:

It is recommended regular night time drill are carried out, in accordance with Staffordshire Fire and Rescue Services guidance.

p.13

EVIDENCE:

It is recommended a matrix is implemented which enables the Manager to quickly identify staff who have to complete mandatory or ‘refresher’ training courses.

p.13

EVIDENCE:

There was written evidence to show electrical items in the Centre had been tested by a qualified person in November, 2005. A risk assessment of the premises had been completed in January, 2005. This did not identify any outstanding safety matters. Security checks were also recorded as being carried out each night by staff on duty.

p.13

EVIDENCE:

An accident log was being maintained. Copies of three accidents sustained by two of the family members residing at the time of the inspection showed appropriate information was being recorded; all were minor incidents. Living Springs DS0000047184.V268902.R01.S.doc Version 5.0 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):

There was a thorough assessment process. Service users’ views were being sought both in relation to the service they were receiving and to the general operation of the Centre.

p.14

EVIDENCE:

The Manager said it was usual practice for families referred for a residential placement to the Centre to be provided with a Service Users Handbook prior to their admission. However, for different reasons, neither party resident at the time of the inspection had received the handbook until the day they were admitted. Both said staff had spent time with them on their first day explaining the daily routine, aims of the placement and so on. Both parties said they were satisfied they had been given sufficient information. An Admissions and Discharge log was being maintained; this contained all required information.

p.14

EVIDENCE:

The focus of the assessment process on families was largely determined either by the referring authority, (usually a Social Services Department), or by the Court. However, individuals were also able to refer themselves directly. Placement Plans were in place for two of the three members of the family group; a third one was not required. The plans were seen to contain clear, measurable objectives. Records of ‘oarentcraft’ lessons conducted by staff with the parents were of good quality. They contained precise information and could be related back to the aims of the placement. The parents were aware Living Springs DS0000047184.V268902.R01.S.doc Version 5.0 Page 15 they could view the daily report on themselves compiled by staff and said their views were included in the report, if they wished.

p.14

EVIDENCE:

Various systems were operating in respect of consulting residents about matters affecting their daily lives and the running of the Centre. Resident’s meetings were said to be convened only when more than one family was resident at the same time. Otherwise, individual discussions were held with residents.

p.15

EVIDENCE:

Residents said they were involved in the formulation of their Placement Plan and in regular review meetings with senior staff. Individual working agreements had also been devised following consultation between residents and staff. The Manager gave an example of residents being involved in the running of the home; a suggestion made during a weekly review meeting by a resident was that a DVD player be purchased for use by residents; one was subsequently purchased.

p.15

EVIDENCE:

Relationships between residents and between residents and staff were observed to be positive. Staff were sensitive to the feelings of residents when carrying out direct supervision or observations of residents’ movements. Living Springs DS0000047184.V268902.R01.S.doc Version 5.0 Page 16

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.16

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

The accommodation continued to be maintained in good order and was suitable for its purpose.

p.16

EVIDENCE:

Living Springs DS0000047184.V268902.R01.S.doc Version 5.0 Page 17 The house is a large, detached property with high-ceiling rooms and period Victorian features. A busy staff office was sited on the ground floor but business conducted from the office did not appear to intrude on residents’ daily routines or privacy. A number of rooms throughout the house were designated for ‘supervised contact’ visits which the Centre provided as another part of its business. These rooms were in frequent use throughout office hours till early evening. The Manager acknowledged that the accommodation was close to capacity level in respect of current, on-site activities conducted by the Centre.

p.17

EVIDENCE:

Visitors to the home were said not to have access to communal areas which residents used. These included a separate kitchen and dining room on the ground floor and a lounge on the first floor. Communal rooms were seen to be decorated and furnished in a manner consistent with good quality, domestic style living. Some items of furniture were a little dated but remained in good condition. The large kitchen was well-equipped and there was sufficient equipment and storage space to enable each family to self-cater. Adequate laundry facilities were also provided in a separate room off the kitchen, for use by residents. The overall impression was that of a comfortable, clean environment.

p.17

EVIDENCE:

Three large bedrooms were designated for residents, there was a lock on each door which could be easily over-ridden in an emergency by staff. The rooms varied in size but all were able to accommodate between three to four persons per room. An unoccupied bedroom for use by a resident was looked at; this was seen to contain adequate furniture, was in good decorative order and provided a pleasant, private space for residents. Two residents had put christmas decorations up in the main lounge which provided a personal, homely look to the room.

p.17

EVIDENCE:

An indoor play area was situated in the cellar. Although the cellar could be accessed from two different stairways, one route had been ‘barred’ from use on the advise of the Inspector conducting the previous inspection. (The steps leading from the main hallway were steep and narrow and, in the Inspectors opinion, unsuitable for children). Notices were displayed to inform staff and residents that they must access the cellar via a stairway leading from the conservatory. Discussions with residents showed they were aware of the instructions. The Inspector made a tour of the accommodation, including the cellar. A lock was seen to be fitted to the cellar door ‘barred’ from use by residents. However, the lock was ill-fitting and was able to be over-ridden with little physical effort.

p.17

EVIDENCE:

It is required an adequate lock is fitted on the cellar door leading from the main hallway. Living Springs DS0000047184.V268902.R01.S.doc Version 5.0 Page 18 Bathrooms and toilets were located on the first floor and were easily accessible to residents. There were a sufficient number for the needs of families in residence. Baths were fitted with thermostatic valves to control water temperatures. The hot water in the bathroom was tested. There was an initial surge of very hot water but the temperature quickly adjusted to a comfortable level. There were separate toilet and showering facilities for staff.

p.17

EVIDENCE:

The staff sleeping-in room also contained a cot for young babies. The usual arrangement would be for babies to be supervised throughout the night by staff as part of a risk management strategy agreed with the referring authority.

p.18

EVIDENCE:

There were monitoring aids fitted in bedrooms but these were not in use. (The Manager advised that they would only be used in conjunction with a direction form the referring authority to do so). The Inspector agreed to seek further advice about the use of the aids to ensure they do not compromise residents’ rights to privacy and so on.

p.18

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 with a large number of items of play equipment 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. There was a good range and supply of play equipment also within the house suitable for children. Living Springs DS0000047184.V268902.R01.S.doc Version 5.0 Page 19

p.18

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.19

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.19

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

Robust management systems were operating to ensure the high quality of service offered continued to be maintained. The service was inclusive and evolving.

p.19

EVIDENCE:

Good attention continued to be given to ensuring staff held relevant qualifications and received appropriate training to enable them to effectively work with children and their families. Within the whole staff team, some of whom worked with residents in the Centre whilst others did ‘out-reach’ work, seven held NVQ level III in children and young people whilst a further three were completing the certificate. Other relevant qualifications held by staff Living Springs DS0000047184.V268902.R01.S.doc Version 5.0 Page 20 included NNEB, Certificate in Health and Social Care and Certificate in Education.

p.19

EVIDENCE:

Staffing arrangements in the Centre varied according to the number of families resident at any one time. However, the Manager said a minimum of two staff would work at all times, over a twenty-four hour period. At night time two staff would do a sleeping-in shift though a waking person would be rostered, if necessary. Staffing levels at the time of the inspection were observed to be sufficient to enable staff to effectively carry out robust assessments based on direct supervision of families.

p.20

EVIDENCE:

The Manager reported that the frequency of staff supervision had greatly improved since the last inspection. Records of staff supervision dates were not checked on this occasion though staff supported the Managers’ comments. Staff within the whole team were observed to offer one another good, informal support. Records showed staff meetings were being held on a regular monthly basis; attendance at the meetings was seen to be approximately two thirds of the whole team. The agenda for the meetings was seen to include training at times; within the last three months two external speakers had attended to talk about fire safety and a new Prevention and Intervention Team set up by Dudley Social Services Department.

p.20

EVIDENCE:

All staff working directly with families were said to have completed Induction training which included First Aid, Basic Food Hygiene, Health and Safety, Child Protection and instruction in the use of the Department of Healths’ Framework for Assessment document. Staff had access to on-going training as well as opportunities to gain relevant qualifications.

p.20

EVIDENCE:

There was efficient and effective management of the Centre. The Manager was seen to provide clear leadership, was easily accessible to staff and residents and communicated effectively at all levels. She maintained direct involvement with families and monitored the assessment process to ensure conclusions were based on factual information and were balanced. The Manager continued to demonstrate a willingness to critically evaluate the standards of care provided and welcomed suggestions for improvements.

p.20

EVIDENCE:

The whole staff group displayed both a continuing commitment to their own professional development and to offering a quality of service to all service users. Living Springs DS0000047184.V268902.R01.S.doc Version 5.0 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 3 19 2 9 3 20 3 10 3 21 3 11 3 12 3 13 4 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 X 5 X MAKING A POSITIVE 14 3 CONTRIBUTION 16 3 Standard No Score 17 3 2 3 18 3 3 3 23 4 6 3 24 X 7 3 25 X Living Springs DS0000047184.V268902.R01.S.doc Version 5.0 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 11 RFC19 An adequate lock is fitted on the cellar door leading from the main hallway. 14/02/06

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 RFC11 All staff receive on-going, child protection training. The Centre’s policy and procedure should be reviewed to indicate the frequency which all staff are required to attend ‘refresher’ training in child protection. 2 RFC22 Regular night time drill are carried out, in accordance with Staffordshire Fire and Rescue Services guidance. 3 RFC18 A matrix is implemented which enables the Manager to quickly identify staff who have to complete mandatory or ‘refresher’ training courses. Living Springs DS0000047184.V268902.R01.S.doc Version 5.0 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