Archived: Jubilee Court

Jubilee Court provides accommodation and care for up to 29 people. At the time of our inspection 24 people were living at the home. All people at Jubilee Court were living with dementia and mental health type illnesses. People had various long term health care needs including diabetes and other conditions which impacted on mobility putting people at risk from falls.

Jubilee Court was on three floors with nine bedrooms on the first and second floors and eight bedrooms on the ground floor accessed by a lift. The ground floor included a kitchen, dining room with access to the garden, a main lounge and a quiet lounge.

There was a registered manager at the home. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC) to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are ‘registered persons’. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

Throughout our inspection, people spoke positively about the home. Comments included, “I love this home. I love all the people and all the staff.” and, “I’m very happy here.” Although staff knew people well and had a good understanding of their individual needs and choices there were some inconsistencies of detailed written information which could leave people at risk of receiving care that was inappropriate or inconsistent. This had not been identified through the quality assurance system. We made a recommendation about quality assurance systems being applied consistently.

People told us they felt safe living at Jubilee Court. There were sufficient levels of staff to protect people’s health, safety and welfare. The provider had improved staffing levels based on the dependency of people’s needs.

Medicines were managed safely including PRN medication. The provider had put in place clear guidance for staff on the administration of PRN medicines.

People were provided with a choice of healthy food and drink ensuring their nutritional needs were met. Staff encouraged and supported people to eat and drink well. One person said, “The food is the best thing about living here.”

Staff knew the individual personalities of people they supported. We saw staff were kind, compassionate and patient and promoted people’s privacy, dignity and choice. People were encouraged to be as independent as possible and we saw friendly and genuine relationships had developed between people and staff. One person said, “Staff are kind and very considerate. I have no problems.” A staff member told us, “I treat the residents like family. I would be happy to have my mum here.”

Training schedules confirmed staff had received training in safeguarding adults at risk. Staff knew how to identify if people were at risk of abuse or harm and knew what to do to ensure they were protected. Staff had received regular supervisions with their manager to discuss additional training needs and development. Staff were encouraged to attend further training, with the majority having achieved Level 2 National Vocational Qualification (NVQ) in health and social care.

Robust recruitment and selection procedures were in place and appropriate checks had been undertaken before staff began work and staff received a range of training that enabled them to support people living at Jubilee Court.

People’s health and wellbeing was monitored and staff regularly liaised with healthcare professionals for advice and guidance. A visiting healthcare professional told us, “I feel safe about the residents’ care here.”

The Care Quality Commission (CQC) monitors the operation of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) and to report on what we find. We found appropriate policies and procedures were in place. The registered manager was familiar with the processes involved in the application for a DoLS, and had made the necessary applications to the authorising authority. Where people lacked the mental capacity to make decisions the home was guided by the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) to ensure decisions were made in the person’s best interests.

People’s friends and family were made welcome and relatives made positive comments about the service. One relative commented, “I have every confidence in the level of care and treatment of residents.”

Below is a summary of what we found. The summary describes what people who used the service and staff told us, what we observed and the records we looked at.

To see the evidence that supports our summary please read the full report.

This is a summary of what we found:

Is the service safe?

People had been cared for in a clean and safe environment. There were policies in place which ensured that people had been protected against the risks associated with falls and safeguarding.

Care Quality Commission (CQC) monitors the operation of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) which applies to care homes. DoLS had been used appropriately when needed for individuals in the home following mental capacity assessments. Staff had been trained to understand this application.

Is the service effective?

From our observations and talking to people who use the service and staff it was clear that staff understood people's care and support needs. People were happy with the care they had received. One person told us, "It's special here they (staff) are a good crowd."

We saw from training records that staff had received appropriate training to meet the needs of the people living at the home.

Is the service caring?

We observed staff interacting with people and saw that they were kind, patient and attentive. One person told us, "Nothing is too much trouble."

Is the service responsive?

People's needs had been assessed and care planned according to individual needs and preferences. This was confirmed by the records we saw. People had access to activities that were important to them and support to carry out outside interests.

Is the service well-led?

Staff had a good understanding of the quality assurance processes that were in place. We saw that people attended residents meetings and that their requests were addressed appropriately. Staff told us that they were clear about their roles and responsibilities. We were told that the manager and head of care were supportive and accessible with an 'open door policy' to enable them to address issues immediately.

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

There was effective quality assurance taking place at the home. We saw that issues raised were addressed promptly.

We saw that people's care needs were clearly documented in their care plans. This meant peoples safety and welfare was ensured.

We looked at medicines and saw that these were managed safely. There were enough staff who had appropriate skills and experience to look after people who lived at Jubilee Court.

One person told us, 'its lovely here.' Another person said, 'no complaints here at all, especially the superintendent (referring to the manager).'

We spoke with visitors who told us they were happy with the care provided. We looked at complaints and saw that the home had a complaints system in place. One visitor said, 'it's nice to be able to say something and know it will be done.'

We saw that the home was clean throughout and staff followed appropriate infection control guidelines. One visitor said, 'it's very clean here and it doesn't smell.'

We saw that staff training was in place and staff were recruited appropriately. One person said, 'all the staff are really good.'

We looked at the care plans and saw that people received care that was based on their assessed need. We saw that people were well cared for. However care delivered was not accurately documented.