Archived: Jasmine Manor

Updated 21 January 2016

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection was planned to check whether the provider is meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Health and Social Care Act 2008, to look at the overall quality of the service, and to provide a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014.

This inspection took place on 21 October 2015 and was unannounced. We returned on 23 October and 28 October 2015 to complete the inspection.

The inspection team consisted of two inspectors on each of the three days.

Before our inspection we reviewed all the information we held about the service. The provider had completed a Provider Information Return (PIR). The PIR is a form that asks the provider to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and the improvements they plan to make. We also checked to see what notifications had been received from the provider. Providers are required to inform the CQC of important events which happen within the service.

We spoke with seven of the eight people living at the home and observed care and support being provided in communal areas. We spoke with the registered manager, deputy manager and one care staff, We also spoke with a two visiting health care professionals. We contacted two social care professionals and another health care professional on the phone to find out their views about the quality of the service. We spoke with visitors and relatives for six of the people living at Jasmine Manor. We looked at seven people’s care records, six staff files and other records relating to the management of the service.

The last inspection was in May 2014 when we found the service met all standards with the exception of the standard relating to infection control. We visited again in September 2014 and found the required improvements relating to infection control had been met.

Updated 21 January 2016

This inspection took place on 21 October 2015 and was carried out by two inspectors. Two more visits by two inspectors took place on 23 October 2015 and on 28 October 2015 to gather further evidence.

Jasmine Manor is registered to provide accommodation care and support for up to 13 people. It is not registered to provide nursing care. At the time of our visit eight people were living there. Seven of the eight people were living with dementia.

The owner was the registered manager. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission 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.

People’s views about how safe, effective, caring and responsive Jasmine Manor was varied. People who lived there were not always positive about the service and we witnessed some things which showed they were not always being treated with respect.  Current relatives and regular visitors were all very positive about the service. A relative of a previous resident was not satisfied their mother had received safe and appropriate care whilst at Jasmine Manor.

We have a number of concerns about the care and support provided at Jasmine Manor which put people at risk of receiving poor care and we concluded the service was not well led.

Allegations of abuse had not been reported to Hampshire County Council under safeguarding protocols. Risks identified in the environment had not been addressed in a timely way. We shared some concerns we had with Hampshire County Council and with Hampshire Fire Service to ensure people were being properly protected.

The staffing structure was fragile and staff recruitment procedures were not thorough.

People had not always been referred to health services when their needs had changed. People did not always like the food and one person had been given a diet, which according to a specialist assessment, was not appropriate for them. There was contradictory information about whether people had capacity to consent to their care. This demonstrated staff did not have a good understanding of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and put people at risk of receiving care which was not in line with this legislation.

People were not always treated with respect. Although we witnessed some kind interactions, some verbal and written descriptions of people’s actions and behaviours were at times judgmental and unsympathetic. This demonstrated a lack of understanding of the needs of people living with dementia and other mental health conditions.

Although care planning was detailed and information about people’s care needs were updated regularly, other records relating to people’s care and support needs were not always accurate. We could therefore not be certain people were receiving the care and support as described.

Staff spent time talking with people, looking through magazines and playing board games with them but opportunities to pursue other activities were limited. The environment was not well adapted to meet the needs of people living with dementia.

The complaints procedure was not robust which meant people could not be assured their concerns would be properly addressed. Quality monitoring processes were not always effective in identifying areas the service could improve upon.

Staff received regular training and supervision and the registered manager and deputy were available and welcoming to visitors and relatives. Relatives confirmed they felt welcomed when they visited the service.

We found nine regulations of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014 had been breached and you can see what action we have told the provider to take at the back of this report.

The overall rating for this service is ‘Inadequate’ and the service is therefore in ‘Special measures.’ The service will be kept under review and, if we have not taken immediate action to propose to cancel the provider’s registration of the service, it will be inspected again within six months. The expectation is that providers found to have been providing inadequate care should have made significant improvements within this timeframe.