inspection report - care quality commission · and physical and neurological disabilities. ......

| Inspection Report | Deneside Court | July 2013 www.cqc.org.uk 1

Inspection Report

We are the regulator: Our job is to check whether hospitals, care homes and care services are meeting essential standards.

Deneside Court

St Josephs Way, Jarrow, NE32 4PJ Tel: 01915191574

Date of Inspection: 25 June 2013 Date of Publication: July 2013

We inspected the following standards as part of a routine inspection. This is what we found:

Respecting and involving people who use services

Met this standard

Care and welfare of people who use services Met this standard

Safeguarding people who use services from abuse

Met this standard

Cleanliness and infection control Action needed

Safety and suitability of premises Met this standard

Supporting workers Met this standard

Assessing and monitoring the quality of service provision

Met this standard


Details about this location

Registered Provider Careline Lifestyles UK Limited

Registered Manager Mrs. Rebecca Lucy Travis

Overview of the service

Deneside Court is a 40 bed purpose built home and providesresidential/nursing care to adults with learning disabilities and physical and neurological disabilities. It has three separate units and additional facilities include a hydrotherapy pool, kitchen, cafe bar, meeting rooms and access to the sensory garden.

Type of service Care home service with nursing

Regulated activities Accommodation for persons who require nursing or personalcare

Diagnostic and screening procedures

Treatment of disease, disorder or injury


Contents

When you read this report, you may find it useful to read the sections towards the back called 'About CQC inspections' and 'How we define our judgements'.

Page

Summary of this inspection:

Why we carried out this inspection 4

How we carried out this inspection 4

What people told us and what we found 4

What we have told the provider to do 4

More information about the provider 5

Our judgements for each standard inspected:

Respecting and involving people who use services 6

Care and welfare of people who use services 8

Safeguarding people who use services from abuse 10

Cleanliness and infection control 11

Safety and suitability of premises 12

Supporting workers 14

Assessing and monitoring the quality of service provision 15

Information primarily for the provider:

Action we have told the provider to take 17

About CQC Inspections 18

How we define our judgements 19

Glossary of terms we use in this report 21

Contact us 23


Summary of this inspection

Why we carried out this inspection

This was a routine inspection to check that essential standards of quality and safety referred to on the front page were being met. We sometimes describe this as a scheduled inspection.

This was an unannounced inspection.

How we carried out this inspection

We looked at the personal care or treatment records of people who use the service, carried out a visit on 25 June 2013, observed how people were being cared for and checked how people were cared for at each stage of their treatment and care. We talked with people who use the service, talked with staff and reviewed information given to us by the provider.

We were supported on this inspection by an expert-by-experience. This is a person who has personal experience of using or caring for someone who uses this type of care service.

What people told us and what we found

People who were able told us they were happy with the quality of their care, and told us they felt relaxed and content in the home. People in the home were protected from abuse. Staff were aware of their responsibilities to keep people safe, and told us they would reportany bad practice. People told us they felt safe and protected by the staff who, they said, "Were kind and caring". Staff had been fully supported in meeting people's needs becausethey received regular supervision or appraisal, and training was up to date.The home had systems in place to regularly check the quality of the care and other services such as catering, the environment and fire safety. Actions had been taken where problems had been identified.We did have some concerns regarding the absence of hand wash basins in the laundry or servery areas which we have asked the provider to review.

You can see our judgements on the front page of this report.

What we have told the provider to do

We have asked the provider to send us a report by 13 August 2013, setting out the action they will take to meet the standards. We will check to make sure that this action is taken.

Where providers are not meeting essential standards, we have a range of enforcement powers we can use to protect the health, safety and welfare of people who use this service(and others, where appropriate). When we propose to take enforcement action, our


decision is open to challenge by the provider through a variety of internal and external appeal processes. We will publish a further report on any action we take.

More information about the provider

Please see our website www.cqc.org.uk for more information, including our most recent judgements against the essential standards. You can contact us using the telephone number on the back of the report if you have additional questions.

There is a glossary at the back of this report which has definitions for words and phrases we use in the report.


Our judgements for each standard inspected

Respecting and involving people who use services Met this standard

People should be treated with respect, involved in discussions about their care and treatment and able to influence how the service is run

Our judgement

The provider was meeting this standard.

People's views and experiences were taken into account in the way the service was provided and delivered in relation to their care.

Reasons for our judgement

We noticed there were key pad locks requiring a coded number on the doors staff used to move from one area of the home to another. Staff told us that some people living at Deneside Court might be given the coded number depending upon their risk assessment. One person we spoke with told us he had a key to his own bedroom but he could not movebetween units without the staff using the key pads. We saw how one of the bedroom doorshad been fitted with a spy hole aperture in the bedroom door. We were concerned about how the fitting of a spy hole opening might deprive an individual of their privacy. We were told by the compliance operations manager for the organisation this had been agreed during a multi disciplinary meeting. They told us the risk assessments for the person had been reviewed and updated to make sure it was used correctly. We were informed the individual no longer lived at Deneside Court and the spy hole to the bedroom door would be removed prior to the bedroom becoming occupied.

We looked at the information provided about how to complain and the survey sheet used to obtain peoples views about the service, which were in an easy read format. The provider may wish to note they may need to increase the font size of the printed word and the pictures to make them more accessible for people with impaired vision. Also information about how to make suggestions and raise concerns should be freely available throughout the building and not in files stored in an office. On the first floor communal area we saw information about local community activities and a notice board. Someone had spent time collecting this information about local transport timetables, day centres, leisure activities, and churches. We asked if people could access advocacy services. (An advocate is someone who can both listen and speak for someone when they need it). We were told that people could access a local advocacy service, and we were shown phone numbers in the information pack. One person we spoke with told usstaff had helped him with his move from hospital to Deneside Court. This meant that people were given assistance to make informed choices about their care, treatment and support.


We saw how part of the care records were all about the life and choices of the individual and included a brief life history supported with information about significant events in their lives. The records showed how people and their families had been encouraged to think about the things and people who were important to them. This included reference to favourite holiday destinations and songs and singers who they would prefer to listen to. People we saw and spoke with were seen to be, comfortable, and appropriately dressed. Staff members we spoke with confirmed meetings had taken place where staff and people,meet together to discuss forthcoming events for the home. This meant that people were able to participate in a range of activities of their choice.


Care and welfare of people who use services Met this standard

People should get safe and appropriate care that meets their needs and supports their rights

Our judgement


People experienced care, treatment and support that met their needs and protected their rights.


There were a total of nine people living at Deneside Court on the day we visited. We observed the care people received and in particular the care that three people received. This is called pathway tracking. People's needs were assessed and care and treatment were planned and delivered in line with the individual care plan. The compliance operations manager told us about the procedure she and other staff members used when assessing the care needs of people. We looked at the information recorded in three people's care plans and we looked at information provided for people who used the service. The assessments we saw were detailed and gave enough information to ensure an appropriate decision could be made as to the suitability of Deneside Court for people and how the care staff could meet their needs. For example we spoke with one person who said he liked living at Deneside Court. He told us he had been baking, and there was an occupational therapist who worked alongside people and helped them to develop their independent living skills. Another person we spoke with told us how he had his own key and told us how he liked to play dominoes with other people. We also saw vegetables being grown in pots, completed by people who lived there.

The care plan files completed by staff were seen to big and bulky. This could result in staff not completing all of the required sections leading to an incomplete assessment of an individuals needs. We were not made aware of how staff provide accessible information inan easy read simple format for people living at Deneside Court.

In the care and support section we also saw completed risk assessments that showed us what the identified risks were and the actions taken to minimise or manage the risk. The care plans incorporated how risks to a person's health and well being were managed and minimised to ensure they were cared for safely. We saw the medical intervention notes recorded when the doctor or healthcare professional had visited. We noted in the care records of the support offered by staff after these visits and the outcome of the visit. We saw entries relating to the support for people with swallowing difficulties, challenging behaviour and visits by the general practitioner. This meant that effective communication was being maintained between different healthcare staff in providing safe care, treatment, and support.


We visited some of the bedrooms and found they were personalised with an individuals personal belongings. We saw how people could easily and safely access the secluded garden area which had been designed to include scents, colour, places to sit and walk comfortably, with raised beds and planters to encourage and support people to become involved with planting of flowers and vegetables.The compliance operations manager told us whenever possible people were involved in planning their care and they had a key worker who monitors and updates the care plan regularly. The care plans were being evaluated to show they were accurate and up to date. The provider should note however the requirement of monthly evaluations in two of the three care plans we looked at were not being met with the evaluation dates being completed every two months. Personal preferences and choices of how people were caredfor were clearly documented. Staff could describe how they were made aware of people's needs and would follow information held within the care plan. We saw how staff supported and enabled people to make informed choices and decisions about the care they received.This meant that people were given assistance to make informed choices about their care, treatment and support.


Safeguarding people who use services from abuse Met this standard

People should be protected from abuse and staff should respect their human rights

Our judgement


People who use the service were protected from the risk of abuse, because the provider had taken reasonable steps to identify the possibility of abuse and prevent abuse from happening.


Staff were being supported and provided with training opportunities to make sure they had the skills and competencies to prepare them for the role they were employed to carry out. Staff training programmes informed staff what how they should respond to behaviour that may be judged as challenging and difficult to work with to support people safely. We discussed safeguarding matters with the three members of staff we spoke with. All were able to tell us how they would raise a safeguarding alert and who to contact. Deneside Court had safeguarding information displayed around the building on notice boards. We saw a folder which was available for staff which contained the provider's protocol on safeguarding guidance on how to write a safeguarding report and a flowchart for referrals. There was also a copy of the local authorities safeguarding policy and procedural framework file. This meant that staff were able follow the relevant referral process and timescales when responding to suspected abuse alerts.When we looked at the staff training records we saw that they had received safeguarding training. However the provider may wish to note there were some gaps in the training matrix regarding safeguarding training. We asked the compliance operations manager about this and she said all but two of those who had not received safeguarding training had been booked on a course in the forthcoming months. We were told they had agreed touse the local authority training provider but they had limited spaces making it difficult to access the training for all staff. We discussed with the compliance operations manager recent safeguarding notifications made to the CQC and local authority safeguarding unit and the subsequent investigations including the lessons learnt. There were currently no outstanding investigations.


Cleanliness and infection control Action needed

People should be cared for in a clean environment and protected from the risk of infection

Our judgement

The provider was not meeting this standard.

People were not being protected from the risk of infection because appropriate guidance had not been followed.

We have judged that this has a moderate impact on people who use the service, and havetold the provider to take action. Please see the 'Action' section within this report.


Deneside Court is a purpose built care home and provides residential/nursing care to adults with learning disabilities, autism, physical and neurological disabilities. We checked the premises to make sure they were clean and in good decorative order. We identified thefollowing concerns. The laundry room had only one entrance for clean and dirty linen. Bothwashing machines and dryers were in working order and staff were storing cleaned ironed clothing in the laundry area. We were concerned about people being at risk of exposure to health care associated infections being transferred between contaminated and uncontaminated items in the environment in which they were being stored. Hand decontamination facilities, including hand hygiene basin with lever taps were not present inthe laundry area. This meant that staff could not clean their hands between handling clean and dirty linen or before touching door handles and equipment. The compliance operations manager told us they do not currently have a dedicated member of staff who deals with the laundering of linen and clothing. Currently it is expected staff provide support to people living at Deneside Court to undertake this task. Deneside Court had clean and spacious living areas and staff we spoke with confirmed they had received training on infection control issues. We saw there was one dirty utility /sluice area on the ground floor and none on the two upper floors. This meant staff having to travel from upper floors to manually clean soiled linen / clothing and then transport themback to the laundry area on the first floor. We noted the absence of dedicated hand washing facilities in the servery and therapy room. Hand hygiene facilities comprising of a hand wash basin, supplied with hot and cold water, liquid soap and disposable paper towels must be available and easily accessible. These should not be used for any other purpose other than hand hygiene. We discussed our observations with the compliance operations manager who indicated she would seek specialist advice on the options to solve these issues.


Safety and suitability of premises Met this standard

People should be cared for in safe and accessible surroundings that support their health and welfare

Our judgement


People who use the service, staff and visitors were protected against the risks of unsafe orunsuitable premises.


We looked around the premises to ensure the provider had taken steps to provide care in an environment that was adequately maintained and suitably designed. During our visit to Deneside Court we saw how the windows in the stairwell area of the home were able to befully opened. We discussed our concerns about the potential for people to gain an exit from the building via this route. Before we left the service the compliance operations manager told us she had arranged for maintenance personnel to visit the home to addressthis issue urgently and confirmed all of the windows had been fitted with restrictors however they had not been adjusted correctly.All bedrooms were for single occupancy with ensuite facilities. We saw there were sufficient lavatories and bathrooms for the number of people who lived at Deneside Court. Lavatories were located in accessible places near communal lounges and dining rooms. We saw the building helped promote and protect people's rights to privacy, dignity, choice and safety. However the provider should note there were no automatic access doors from the main entrance resulting in people in wheelchairs unable to gain independent access into the home. We visited some of the bedrooms and found they were personalised with an individuals personal belongings. We saw how people could easily and safely access the secluded garden area which had been designed to include scents, colour, places to sit and walk comfortably, with raised beds and planters to encourage and support people to become involved with planting of flowers and vegetables. The surroundings reflected the capacity, ability, and preferred lifestyle of the individual. There were clear signs and visual clues to identify important rooms or areas for example the toilets, their bedroom and the dining area. Some people had their own furniture such as armchairs and televisions. The providershould note however some of the bedroom door closures were closing abruptly against thewooden rebate. We had concerns about the potential for people having their hands caughtor being knocked over. The compliance operations manager informed us that she had arranged for them to be adjusted. In communal areas and corridors there were various sensory stimuli for example photographs, pictures, scented flowers potted floral arrangements, interesting objects from a relevant era to stimulate and interest people.

We were told by the compliance operations manager they were keeping a record of areas of the home that require attention because it was a new building and the contractor had


agreed to complete these in twelve months following the handover to the provider. We were also told the provider had a maintenance team to help maintain the building. This meant the provider made sure that people who use the service and others were protected against the risks of unsafe or unsuitable premises.


Supporting workers Met this standard

Staff should be properly trained and supervised, and have the chance to develop and improve their skills

Our judgement


People were cared for by staff who were supported to deliver care and treatment safely and to an appropriate standard.


We looked at a staff training matrix provided by the compliance operations manager. This showed a list of staff, and it set out the mandatory training they had completed and any additional training. The matrix also enabled the dates to be identified when renewal training was due. We looked at the staff files of four members of staff, including a registered nurse, two care and one domestic worker. Mandatory training included induction, safeguarding, moving and handling, fire, infection control, health and safety foodhygiene and first aid. We saw from the four members of staff files that they had received this training although we did have to ask for some of the certificates to be made available from the regional head office.

In the case of the registered nurse we saw evidence that their registration with the nursing and midwifery council (NMC) was up to date and included on their staff file. Some staff also had additional qualifications such as either a level 2 or 3 national vocational qualification (NVQ) in health and social care, and additional training had also been given inchallenging behaviour and person centred care planning.

We spoke with staff members about the level of support they received from the manager. They said they enjoyed their work and were pleased with the support they received. Records were in place to confirm this. The record of staff meeting minutes showed the topics discussed along with action points. We saw that there was evidence of supervision meetings in all of the care files with the exception of one person. We brought this to the attention of the compliance operations manager. We asked about annual appraisals. And we spoke with three members of staff about supervision and appraisals. Two confirmed they had received regular supervisions, one said that they had not. They said that regular staff meetings were held. Staff said they felt supported and had received enough training to do their jobs. We discussed the comments made by staff with the compliance operations manager. She told us how the care home had only been open for seven months and confirmed that there were plans to begin holding appraisals from July 2013 onwards. Staff received appropriate professional development and were able to obtain further relevant qualifications.


Assessing and monitoring the quality of service provision

Met this standard

The service should have quality checking systems to manage risks and assure the health, welfare and safety of people who receive care

Our judgement


The provider had an effective system in place to identify, assess and manage risks to the health, safety and welfare of people who use the service and others.


We saw the provider had auditing systems to assess and monitor the quality of the servicebeing provided. People who used the service at Deneside Court were asked for their viewsabout their care and treatment and the type of actions taken by the provider in response tocomments made. This was encouraged through staff surveys, discussion with staff, newsletter and suggestion boxes. We were shown the audit plan for 2013 and a list of other periodic service reviews (PSR's) undertaken since the home first opened in November 2012. The home carried out risk assessments and produced risk management plans relating to the people who lived there and the environment. These plans identified the potential risks and actions taken to ensurethe needs of people who use the service have been met. We looked at the audit records for medication, accidents and incidents, care plans and environmental risk management. The results of all audits were discussed at the subsequent staff meetings. We found that there were both external and internal governance systems in place to monitor the quality ofthe services provided although the monthly visits by the compliance operations manager had not been undertaken as regularly as scheduled. We were told that the reason for this was because of the support and assistance given to the recently appointed manager by the compliance operations manager. We judged that the service could still identify and respond to any required improvements.

We saw the complaints file which contained a pictorial complaints procedure and the provider's complaints policy. There was also a copy of South Tyneside Local Authorities' own complaints form. There was a form in the file about how to complain. We asked if any complaints had been received since the service had opened and were told that none had been received. This meant that the provider had appropriate systems in place for gathering, recording, and evaluating information about the quality and safety of the care, treatment and support being provided.

Staff we spoke with said they were encouraged to comment and felt any ideas on continued improvements in the service were well received. The results of satisfaction surveys including feedback from visiting professionals were made available. The comments included a number of positive comments from relatives and the visitors about


the care and support provided at this service.

The manager told us that resident and relative meetings were also held regularly. We weretold questionnaires were also sent out regularly to people using the service and their relatives to get their views of the home. This meant that people living in the home were asked their views and involved in the running of the home. We saw the provider had an effective system in place to identify, assess and manage risks to health, safety and welfareof people using services and others.

This section is primarily information for the provider


Action we have told the provider to take

Compliance actions

The table below shows the essential standards of quality and safety that were not being met. The provider must send CQC a report that says what action they are going to take to meet these essential standards.

Regulated activities Regulation

Accommodation for persons who require nursing or personal care

Diagnostic and screening procedures

Treatment of disease, disorder or injury

Regulation 12 HSCA 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations2010

Cleanliness and infection control

How the regulation was not being met:

There was a risk of cross infection caused by a lack of suitable hand washing and sluicing facilities in the home.

This report is requested under regulation 10(3) of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2010.

The provider's report should be sent to us by 13 August 2013.

CQC should be informed when compliance actions are complete.

We will check to make sure that action has been taken to meet the standards and will report on our judgements.


About CQC inspections

We are the regulator of health and social care in England.

All providers of regulated health and social care services have a legal responsibility to make sure they are meeting essential standards of quality and safety. These are the standards everyone should be able to expect when they receive care.

The essential standards are described in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2010 and the Care Quality Commission (Registration) Regulations 2009. We regulate against these standards, which we sometimes describe as "governmentstandards".

We carry out unannounced inspections of all care homes, acute hospitals and domiciliary care services in England at least once a year to judge whether or not the essential standards are being met. We carry out inspections of other services less often. All of our inspections are unannounced unless there is a good reason to let the provider know we are coming.

There are 16 essential standards that relate most directly to the quality and safety of care and these are grouped into five key areas. When we inspect we could check all or part of any of the 16 standards at any time depending on the individual circumstances of the service. Because of this we often check different standards at different times.

When we inspect, we always visit and we do things like observe how people are cared for, and we talk to people who use the service, to their carers and to staff. We also review information we have gathered about the provider, check the service's records and check whether the right systems and processes are in place.

We focus on whether or not the provider is meeting the standards and we are guided by whether people are experiencing the outcomes they should be able to expect when the standards are being met. By outcomes we mean the impact care has on the health, safety and welfare of people who use the service, and the experience they have whilst receiving it.

Our inspectors judge if any action is required by the provider of the service to improve the standard of care being provided. Where providers are non-compliant with the regulations, we take enforcement action against them. If we require a service to take action, or if we take enforcement action, we re-inspect it before its next routine inspection was due. This could mean we re-inspect a service several times in one year. We also might decide to re-inspect a service if new concerns emerge about it before the next routine inspection.

In between inspections we continually monitor information we have about providers. The information comes from the public, the provider, other organisations, and from care workers.

You can tell us about your experience of this provider on our website.


How we define our judgements

The following pages show our findings and regulatory judgement for each essential standard or part of the standard that we inspected. Our judgements are based on the ongoing review and analysis of the information gathered by CQC about this provider and the evidence collected during this inspection.

We reach one of the following judgements for each essential standard inspected.

Met this standard This means that the standard was being met in that the provider was compliant with the regulation. If we find that standards were met, we take no regulatory action but we may make comments that may be useful to the provider and to the public about minor improvements that could be made.

Action needed This means that the standard was not being met in that the provider was non-compliant with the regulation. We may have set a compliance action requiring the provider to produce a report setting out how and by when changes will be made to make sure they comply with the standard. We monitor the implementation of action plans in these reports and, if necessary, take further action.We may have identified a breach of a regulation which is more serious, and we will make sure action is taken. We will report on this when it is complete.

Enforcement action taken

If the breach of the regulation was more serious, or there have been several or continual breaches, we have a range ofactions we take using the criminal and/or civil procedures in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and relevant regulations. These enforcement powers include issuing a warning notice; restricting or suspending the services a provider can offer, or the number of people it can care for; issuing fines and formal cautions; in extreme cases, cancelling a provider or managers registration or prosecutinga manager or provider. These enforcement powers are set out in law and mean that we can take swift, targeted action where services are failing people.


How we define our judgements (continued)

Where we find non-compliance with a regulation (or part of a regulation), we state which part of the regulation has been breached. Only where there is non compliance with one or more of Regulations 9-24 of the Regulated Activity Regulations, will our report include a judgement about the level of impact on people who use the service (and others, if appropriate to the regulation). This could be a minor, moderate or major impact.

Minor impact - people who use the service experienced poor care that had an impact on their health, safety or welfare or there was a risk of this happening. The impact was not significant and the matter could be managed or resolved quickly.

Moderate impact - people who use the service experienced poor care that had a significant effect on their health, safety or welfare or there was a risk of this happening. The matter may need to be resolved quickly.

Major impact - people who use the service experienced poor care that had a serious current or long term impact on their health, safety and welfare, or there was a risk of this happening. The matter needs to be resolved quickly

We decide the most appropriate action to take to ensure that the necessary changes are made. We always follow up to check whether action has been taken to meet the standards.


Glossary of terms we use in this report

Essential standard

The essential standards of quality and safety are described in our Guidance about compliance: Essential standards of quality and safety. They consist of a significant numberof the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2010 and the Care Quality Commission (Registration) Regulations 2009. These regulations describe theessential standards of quality and safety that people who use health and adult social care services have a right to expect. A full list of the standards can be found within the Guidance about compliance. The 16 essential standards are:

Respecting and involving people who use services - Outcome 1 (Regulation 17)

Consent to care and treatment - Outcome 2 (Regulation 18)

Care and welfare of people who use services - Outcome 4 (Regulation 9)

Meeting Nutritional Needs - Outcome 5 (Regulation 14)

Cooperating with other providers - Outcome 6 (Regulation 24)

Safeguarding people who use services from abuse - Outcome 7 (Regulation 11)

Cleanliness and infection control - Outcome 8 (Regulation 12)

Management of medicines - Outcome 9 (Regulation 13)

Safety and suitability of premises - Outcome 10 (Regulation 15)

Safety, availability and suitability of equipment - Outcome 11 (Regulation 16)

Requirements relating to workers - Outcome 12 (Regulation 21)

Staffing - Outcome 13 (Regulation 22)

Supporting Staff - Outcome 14 (Regulation 23)

Assessing and monitoring the quality of service provision - Outcome 16 (Regulation 10)

Complaints - Outcome 17 (Regulation 19)

Records - Outcome 21 (Regulation 20)

Regulated activity

These are prescribed activities related to care and treatment that require registration with CQC. These are set out in legislation, and reflect the services provided.


Glossary of terms we use in this report (continued)

(Registered) Provider

There are several legal terms relating to the providers of services. These include registered person, service provider and registered manager. The term 'provider' means anyone with a legal responsibility for ensuring that the requirements of the law are carried out. On our website we often refer to providers as a 'service'.

Regulations

We regulate against the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2010 and the Care Quality Commission (Registration) Regulations 2009.

Responsive inspection

This is carried out at any time in relation to identified concerns.

Routine inspection

This is planned and could occur at any time. We sometimes describe this as a scheduled inspection.

Themed inspection

This is targeted to look at specific standards, sectors or types of care.


Contact us

Phone: 03000 616161

Email: [email protected]

Write to us at:

Care Quality CommissionCitygateGallowgateNewcastle upon TyneNE1 4PA

Website: www.cqc.org.uk

Copyright Copyright © (2011) Care Quality Commission (CQC). This publication may be reproduced in whole or in part, free of charge, in any format or medium provided that it is not used for commercial gain. This consent is subject to the material being reproduced accurately and on proviso that it is not used in a derogatory manner or misleading context. The material should be acknowledged as CQC copyright, with thetitle and date of publication of the document specified.

inspection report - care quality commission · and physical and neurological disabilities. ......

Documents