We carried out a review of the data available to us about Jasmine Court on 6 July 2023. We have not found evidence that we need to carry out an inspection or reassess our rating at this stage.
This could change at any time if we receive new information. We will continue to monitor data about this service.
If you have concerns about Jasmine Court, you can give feedback on this service.
We found the following examples of good practice.
We observed all staff were wearing personal protective equipment (PPE) appropriately, a relative we spoke with confirmed staff were wearing PPE when they visited. PPE stations were in place throughout the service and there was a plentiful stock to access. All areas of the service was clean and tidy and cleaning checks were recorded. A range of audits and monitoring was being undertaken, with notes for actions required and dates to be completed.
Visits were taking place safely. Relevant checks were undertaken for all people who visited, including lateral flow test results, temperature checks and confirmation of vaccine status for professionals. The manager confirmed the procedure they took to ensure people were admitted to the service safely.
Staff told us they had undertaken training in donning and doffing and we saw evidence of this as well as competency checks completed by the manager. The training matrix confirmed the staff training for infection prevention and control (IPC) and COVID-19.
A range of information and guidance was on display for staff to follow. Up to date policies, procedures and guidance was available. These were updated as required and staff confirmed they were provided with updates. Risk assessments were completed, including those for people from at high risk groups.
Staff and a relative told us there was sufficient staff in place. A staff member said, “They use the same staff, there is a bit of agency but not too much, this has reduced greatly, they use the same agency staff.” A relative told us there was plenty of staff and they saw the same faces when they visited. There was an ongoing recruitment programme and new staff had commenced employment. Where agency staff were being used to cover gaps in duty rotas the manager and staff confirmed these were the same staff that would ensure consistency.
Jasmine Court is a residential care home providing care and accommodation for up to 66 older people, younger adults, people with a physical disability and people living with dementia. The home is purpose built with accommodation over three floors, with each floor having bedrooms, a lounge and a dining area. All bedrooms have en-suite facilities. There is a passenger lift to access all floors. People living with dementia live mainly on the top two floors. At the time of the inspection 52 people were living at the home.
People’s experience of using this service and what we found
People felt safe living at the home and told us staff were available when they needed them. Before the inspection, we had received a number of anonymous concerns about a variety of issues, including alleged inappropriate staff conduct and neglect. During the inspection we did not find any evidence to support these concerns. Staff had completed safeguarding training and knew how to protect people from the risk of abuse and avoidable harm. The registered manager recruited staff safely. People’s medicines were managed safely, though some minor improvements were needed. We have made a recommendation about this. Staff followed safe infection prevention and control practices and adhered to Government guidance on COVID-19. The safety of the home environment was checked regularly.
Staff provided support which reflected people’s needs and risks. People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice. Staff received the induction and training they needed to support people well. People received support with their dietary and healthcare needs and were referred for specialist support when they needed it. The environment was purpose built to enable people to remain as independent as possible. The provider had made improvements to the home environment since taking over the service and further improvements were ongoing.
People liked the staff who supported them and told us staff were kind and respectful. Staff encouraged people to be independent and make decisions about their care when they were able to. Staff respected people's right to privacy, dignity and confidentiality.
Staff supported people in an individualised way which reflected their needs and preferences. Staff knew the people they cared for and encouraged them to make decisions when they could. Staff reviewed people's care needs regularly. Concerns and complaints were managed appropriately. A variety of activities and entertainment were available at the home and staff supported people to take part. People’s end of life care wishes were discussed with them.
The registered manager and staff were clear about their responsibilities. They prioritised providing people with personalised, good quality care which met their needs. The service worked in partnership with a number of community agencies to ensure people received any specialist support they needed. People’s views about the service were sought and listened to. People, relatives and staff felt the service was managed well. The registered manager and provider completed regular checks to ensure appropriate standards of quality and safety were being maintained at the home.
For more details, please see the full report which is on the Care Quality Commission (CQC) website at www.cqc.org.uk
Rating at last inspection and update
The last rating for the service under the previous provider was good (published 10 December 2019). Since this rating was awarded, the registered provider of the service has changed. We have used the previous rating to inform our planning and decisions about the rating at this inspection.
We also completed a targeted infection prevention and control inspection of the service under the previous provider on 17 November 2020 (published 17 December 2020) and were assured that people were receiving safe care which protected them from the risk of cross infection.
Why we inspected
This was a planned inspection based on the service’s date of registration under the new provider. The inspection was also prompted in part due to a number of anonymous concerns received about a variety of issues, including alleged inappropriate staff conduct, neglect, the management of medicines, staffing arrangements, falls and the management of the service. A decision was made for us to inspect and examine those risks. We found no evidence during this inspection that people were at risk of harm from these concerns.
We looked at infection prevention and control measures under the Safe key question. We look at this in all care home inspections even if no concerns or risks have been identified. This is to provide assurance that the service can respond to COVID-19 and other infection outbreaks effectively.
Follow up
We will continue to monitor information we receive about the service until we return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If we receive any concerning information we may inspect sooner.
We found the following examples of good practice.
The provider had a clear procedure in place, in response to the Covid19 pandemic, which helped minimise the risk of visitors spreading infection. Visitors were only permitted in line with current government guidance. Visits were limited to professionals and relatives in specific circumstances. All visitors were screened at the entrance, including temperature checks, a questionnaire and logging in to the track and trace app. Signage at the entrance provided clear guidance. Personal protective equipment (PPE) and hand cleansing gel was available at the entrance.
The registered manager and the staff team followed social distancing as far as possible. Staff were allocated to one of the three units to minimise the number of people they encountered. Staff worked between units only when it was unavoidable. Rotas we looked at confirmed this. Staff breaks had been staggered and the routes staff and visitors took around the building had been arranged to minimise contacts with others.
The provider had an admissions procedure for people being admitted to the home from hospital or the community. People needed to have a negative Covid19 test result and had to isolate for 14 days in the home. People who attended hospital appointments, and the staff who supported them, changed their clothes on return which helped minimise the risk of bringing infection into the home.
The provider ensured there were enough stocks of PPE. PPE stations were set up throughout the home. We saw staff were wearing PPE appropriately. Staff had received training in infection prevention and control and the use of PPE and had signed to indicate they understood.
The registered manager had completed risk assessments which reflected people's increased vulnerability to Covid19. We felt these could be clearer and discussed this with the registered manager who has amended the documents.