You are here

Archived: Jubilee Court Good

The provider of this service changed - see new profile


Inspection carried out on 19 December 2016

During a routine inspection

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 carried out on 18 September 2014

During a routine inspection

A single inspector carried out this inspection. The focus of the inspection was to answer five key questions; is the service safe, effective, caring, responsive and well-led?

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.

Inspection carried out on 24 September 2013

During an inspection in response to concerns

People that we spoke with told us they were happy living at the home. One person told us, "the staff are very good". Another person told us they had enjoyed their day. We observed people talking and engaging with staff throughout the day. Staff knew people well and the care was good.

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

Inspection carried out on 5 June 2013

During a routine inspection

People we spoke with told us they were happy living at the home. One person told us they were nervous to go out on their own so a member of staff would always accompany them. Another person told us they went out every day they told us, “I have my routine, it gets me out.” People told us that staff were always available for support. One person told us, “staff are very good here, they will always help.”

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.

Inspection carried out on 19 February 2013

During a routine inspection

We were not able to speak to some of the people using the service due to their dementia type illnesses. However, those people we spoke with told us they were happy living at the home.

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.

Inspection carried out on 28 February 2012

During a routine inspection

We met most of the people living in the home during our visit, and talked with seven of them during the day.

We did not have long conversations with people living in the home, as some had dementia; and some had mental health problems including anxiety and depression. We did not wish to cause anyone undue anxiety or concern. However, we received the following comments:

“There’s always lots of things to do.”

“The staff are very good to us.”

“It’s very comfortable here, and I like my room.”

“It is excellent here! They gave me a lovely birthday. It is home, sweet home, here.”

We also carried out a “short observational inspection” for half an hour in the lounge, which is a method of observing a few people every few minutes over a set time period. This enabled us to see that staff interacted well with people and were aware of their different needs.