You are here

Archived: Jubilee Court Good

The provider of this service changed - see new profile

Inspection Summary

Overall summary & rating


Updated 10 February 2017

The inspection of Jubilee Court took place on 19 and 20 December 2016 and was unannounced.

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.”

Inspection areas



Updated 10 February 2017

The service was safe.

Risk to people had been assessed and managed.

Staffing levels were sufficient to keep people in the service safe.

Checks had been completed on staff to ensure they were suitable and safe to work with people at risk.

Staff had a clear understanding of the procedures in place to safeguard people from abuse.

Medicines were stored, administered and disposed of safely.

The premises and equipment at the service was well maintained.



Updated 10 February 2017

The service was effective.

Staff had received training and regular supervisions to carry out their role.

Staff had a basic understanding of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards. Senior staff knew what they were required to do if someone lacked the capacity to understand a decision that needed to be made about their life.

People were provided with food and drink which supported them to maintain a healthy diet. Staff protected people from poor nutrition and dehydration.

People were supported to have access to healthcare professionals when they needed it.

Staff understood people’s health needs and responded when those needs changed.



Updated 10 February 2017

The service was caring.

Staff had a good understanding of the history, likes, preferences and needs of the people who used the service.

Staff communicated effectively with every person using the service.

Staff had built a rapport with people and treated them with kindness and respect.

Care plans were personal to each person and included detailed information about the things that were most important to them.

Confidential information was held securely and there were policies and procedures to protect people’s confidentiality.



Updated 10 February 2017

The service was responsive.

People received consistent, personalised care and care plans were reviewed regularly.

People’s changing needs were identified and reviewed regularly.

People decided how they spent their time, and a range of activities were provided depending on people’s preferences.

Personalised information regarding people’s daily routines was available to assist staff in supporting people with their preferred choices.

Concerns and complaints were responded to appropriately.


Requires improvement

Updated 10 February 2017

The service was not consistently well-led because records did not consistently include detailed information about the care people needed or received.

Incidents and accidents were documented but not always analysed to identify trends to prevent reoccurrence.

Feedback from people, relatives and staff were gathered however where suggestions for improvement had been made there was not always an action or response recorded.

The home had a registered manager who provided clear leadership and support.

Quality Assurance audits were undertaken to ensure the safe running of the home.