The Care Quality Commission
  • Care Home
  • Care home

Archived: Jasmine Manor

Overall: Inadequate read more about inspection ratings

3 Station Road, Park Gate, Southampton, Hampshire, SO31 7GJ (01489) 581249

Provided and run by:
Ms Marie McCann

All Inspections

21,23 and 28 October 2015

During a routine inspection

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.

9 September 2014

During an inspection looking at part of the service

During a scheduled inspection in May 2014 we found the home had not met the required standard in respect of cleanliness and infection control. This was because the provider's infection prevention and control measures were not sufficiently robust to ensure the safety and welfare of people using the service. We judged the service was non-compliant and told the provider they required improvement.

The provider contacted us in 27 June 2014 and told us what action they would take to ensure they met the required standard.

During this inspection we looked at policies and procedures, staff training records, and audits. We spoke with three people using the service and 2 relatives. We also spoke with the registered manager, deputy manager who was also the infection control lead for the home and one care worker. We gathered evidence against the outcome we inspected to help answer our question:

' Is the service safe?

This is a summary of what we found '

Is the service safe?

The provider had made the necessary improvements and we made the judgement the provider was now meeting the required standard.

During our inspection in May 2014 we found in one communal bathroom and toilet the floor covering was carpet tiles. Since our inspection the provider had removed and replaced the carpet tiles with laminate flooring. This was sealed at the edges to minimise the risk of dirt and bacteria build up.

We saw cleaning schedules were in place and included all areas of the home. We saw that these cleaning schedules were supported by a check list which had been signed by staff when these tasks had been completed.

One care worker told us: 'I know how important it is to maintain a high level of hygiene to prevent any cross-infection. We always make sure commodes are cleaned after use and they are clean before we use them. That way we know they are safe to use'.

28, 29 May 2014

During a routine inspection

We brought forward a planned inspection because concerns were brought to our attention alleging that people at the home were not cared for properly. We were not able to substantiate the allegations.

At the time of our inspection there were nine people accommodated at Jasmine Manor (the home) but one of them was in hospital.

We spoke with three people who lived at the home about some of their experiences of there. We were unable to speak with most people about their experiences because of their mental frailty. We therefore used a number of different methods to help us understand their experiences. We reviewed people's care and support plans and other relevant records. We also spoke with six visitors to the home and three staff, observed activities in the home's communal areas and also staff working practices.

We gathered evidence against the outcomes we inspected to help answer our five key questions.

Is the service caring?

Is the service responsive?

Is the service safe?

Is the service effective?

Is the service well led?

Below is a summary of what we found. If you want to see the evidence supporting our summary please read our full report.

Is the service caring?

People's preferred lifestyles, privacy, dignity and independence were respected.

A visiting relative said, 'They get individual treatment here ' I have arranged for her own hairdresser to visit her here and do her hair ' she has her own room with her own bits and pieces in it'.

People received the support they wanted and needed.

Is the service responsive?

People were supported in maintaining their independence and community involvement and their diversity, values and human rights were respected.

The provider had their complaints procedures prominently displayed in the home and accessible to people if they wished to raise concerns.

Is the service safe?

The support people received was planned and delivered in a way that ensured their safety, welfare and promoted their healthcare needs.

The provider had arrangements in place that ensured most equipment was regularly checked, serviced and if necessary repaired or replaced.

There were enough qualified, skilled and experienced staff employed to meet people's needs.

People living at the home were at risk of some harm because infection and prevention control measures were not effective as appropriate standards of hygiene and cleanliness in bathroom and toilet areas had not been maintained.

Is the service effective?

The support people received was planned and delivered in a way that ensured their safety, welfare and promoted their healthcare needs.

People were protected from the risks of inadequate nutrition and hydration.

Is the service well led?

People or their relatives/representative had information about the service, were able to express their views and understood the care and support choices available to them.

The provider had systems in place to regularly check and monitor the quality of the service and identify, assess and manage risks to the health, safety and welfare of people using the service and others.

18 June 2013

During a routine inspection

There were four people living at the home on the day of the inspection and we spoke with two of them about their experience of living in the home. One told us the, "staff do a job" and two people told us they were happy with how clean their bedroom and communal areas were. A visitor told us their relative was, "happy" there. We used a variety of methods to understand the experience of people living in the home, which included observing staff interventions and looking at records, such as minutes of 'resident's meetings' as well as questionnaires completed by people or their families, which showed people were happy with the service.

We found that staff were aware of people's assessed care and support needs and that these were met. People could choose where they spent their day and what level of support they wanted, for example, with eating. People received their medication as prescribed and care plans were in place when medication was prescribed as 'when required'. The home was kept clean and cleaning schedules were completed and audited to ensure cleaning tasks were undertaken. The manager had implemented a quality assurance system and had developed this since our last visit. Records showed auditing was completed regularly. Recruitment procedures were in place to ensure staff had adequate checks before starting work but this was yet to be tested as there had not been any new staff since our last inspection.

6 September 2012

During an inspection looking at part of the service

We spoke with two people about how they were supported with their medication and they confirmed that staff gave them their tablets as needed. We did not gain any feedback about staff recruitment and training.

24 May 2012

During an inspection looking at part of the service

As we walked around the home, we spoke with people where possible but did not talk with them specifically about the outcomes detailed in this report. However, we had spoken with people during our previous visits to gain their views about living in the home. We also looked at daily records to gain information about how they spent their day and what support was being provided.

23 April 2012

During an inspection looking at part of the service

We spoke with the majority of people during our two visits as we conducted our inspection and moved around the home.

We spoke with a person living in the home who said they were well looked after. We spoke with three people who informed us that there was, 'nothing to do' at the home.

One said they would have liked to have watched another program but it was too much effort to get to their room. We later discovered that the television in their room did not work though they did have a radio. They also said they liked to read the newspaper but they only had one in the home which they shared. We spoke with a person who had specific dietary needs, to clarify what diet they needed and what food they ate at mealtimes.

We also spoke with a visitor who said their relative was very happy and well looked after. They liked the home because it was small and homely.