• Care Home
  • Care home

Jasmine House

Overall: Requires improvement read more about inspection ratings

41 Hillfield Road, Hemel Hempstead, Hertfordshire, HP2 4AB (01442) 253398

Provided and run by:
Complete Care Services Limited

All Inspections

9 March 2021

During an inspection looking at part of the service

Jasmine House is registered to provide accommodation and personal care for up to six people with mental health support needs and learning disabilities. There were six people living at the service at the time of this inspection.

We found the following examples of good practice.

¿ The service was receiving professional visitors with clear infection control procedures in place. Visitors were screened and had their temperatures checked by staff on arrival. All visitors were required to wear personal protective equipment (PPE).

¿ The service had been facilitating ‘screened visits’ and ‘garden visits’. Visits were pre-arranged and scheduled to avoid any potential infection transmission between visitors.

¿ Staff had received training and had their competency checked for donning and doffing PPE safely. Staff were seen to be adhering to the PPE guidance and protective measures in place.

¿ The service was engaged in the routine testing scheme, with all staff and people living at the service being tested for COVID-19 on a regular basis.

¿ The registered manager had developed procedures and guidance for people and staff in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Risks to people and staff in relation to their health, safety and wellbeing had been assessed.

25 March 2019

During a routine inspection

About the service:

Jasmine House provides accommodation, care and support for up to six people with mental health support needs and learning disabilities. There were five people using the service at the time of the inspection.

People’s experience of using this service:

• People were not always protected from the risk of harm, because window restrictors were not in place on the first floor of the building, to ensure the safety of vulnerable people.

• Audits were not always effective. A health and safety check was not properly filled out. It stated that windows had been checked for safety, and were appropriately restricted, when they were not.

• Risk assessments were in place to manage risks within people’s lives.

• Staff recruitment procedures ensured that appropriate pre-employment checks were carried out.

• Medicines were stored and administered safely.

• Staffing support matched the level of assessed needs within the service during our inspection.

• Staff were trained to support people effectively.

• Staff were supervised well and felt confident in their roles.

• People were supported to have a varied diet.

• Healthcare needs were met, and people had access to health professionals as required.

• People's consent was gained before any care was provided, and they were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives.

• Staff treated people with kindness, dignity and respect and spent time getting to know them.

• People were supported in the least restrictive way possible.

• Care plans reflected people likes dislikes and preferences.

• People were able to take part in a range of activities and outings.

• People and their family were involved in their own care planning as much as was possible.

• A complaints system was in place and was used effectively.

• The service had a registered manager in place, and staff felt well supported by them.

Rating at last inspection: Good (report published 30/03/2016)

Why we inspected

This was a planned inspection based on the rating at the last inspection.


Please see the bottom of this report for further information on action we have taken.

Follow up:

We will continue to monitor the service through the information we receive until we return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If any concerning information is received we may inspect sooner. For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk

11 December 2015

During a routine inspection

This inspection took place on 11 December 2015 and was unannounced. The service is a care home that provides accommodation and personal care for up to six people with a learning disability or mental health needs. On the day of the inspection there were five people living at the home and one person had been admitted to hospital.

The service has a 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 felt safe and there were systems in place to ensure that people were protected against the possible risk of harm. Risks to individuals had been assessed and managed appropriately. There were sufficient numbers of experienced and skilled staff to care for people safely. Medicines were managed safely and people received their medicines regularly and as prescribed.

People received care and support from staff who were trained and competent in their roles. Staff were aware of the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act (2005) and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards. People’s nutritional and health care needs were met. They were supported to maintain their health and wellbeing and received support from other health care professionals.

People were treated with compassion and they had been involved in decisions relating to their care. People were treated with respect and their privacy, dignity and independence was promoted.

People’s health care needs were assessed, reviewed and delivered in a way that promoted their independence and wellbeing. They were supported to pursue their leisure activities both outside the home and to join in activities provided at the home. An effective complaints procedure was in place.

There was a caring culture and effective systems in operation to seek the views of people and other stakeholders in order to assess and monitor the quality of service provision.

29 January 2014

During a routine inspection

During our inspection of Jasmine House on 29 January 2014, we spoke with three people who lived at the home and three members of staff. There were currently five people living at Jasmine House.

On the day of our inspection three people were at home and others were out having lunch with family and attending a local day centre. People we spoke with were positive about the care that they received and felt involved in setting their own personal goals and in planning how their care needs were met. One person told us: 'I'm happy here. I'm looked after and there is always someone there for me'.

We found that care records were current and reflected the needs of people who lived in the home. Staff demonstrated a good understanding and knowledge of the care and support people required.

Safeguarding policies to protect vulnerable adults were in place and staff had undertaken safeguarding training.

The premises were well maintained and records showed that appropriate safety checks had taken place on systems and equipment to ensure the safety of people living in the home.

There was a recruitment procedure in place which ensured that only people suitable to work with vulnerable people were employed. Staff received a wide range of training which equipped them for their role.

The provider had a system in place to check that people were satisfied with the service and they had various monitoring checks on a number of aspects of the service.

21, 22 February 2013

During an inspection looking at part of the service

This visit was a follow up visit following our November 2012 inspection, when we were concerned that not all the people living in the home had their needs recognised and met. We spoke to two of the four people living in the home and were satisfied that all of the people were now having their needs recognised and met. Care plans had been updated to reflect the needs of the people and staff were given clear direction on how to meet people's needs.

We spoke with staff who had completed training in the safeguarding of adults and on caring for people who have complex needs.

Following the last inspection, the manager sent us an action plan detailing how the home was going to address the concerns we raised. We noted that the action plan had been put in place and the home was now meetings the needs of all the people who lived there.

29 November 2012

During a routine inspection

We spoke to all the four people who lived at Jasmine House at the time of our visit. We were told by three of the four people that they were happy and well cared for. When we arrived two of the people were involved in an art and crafts session with a visiting therapist. They showed us the work they had done. They said that they were happy living at Jasmine House and that the staff took good care of them.

We found that the provider was not meeting four of the five outcomes we reviewed during this inspection. Most of the people and their relatives had been involved in the decisions about their care and support. Most of the people's privacy and dignity had been respected. Each person had an assessment of their needs carried out before they came to the home, however one person’s care plan did not reflect their care needs. All the care plans and the risk assessments for people had not been reviewed regularly. Therefore, the information available to staff was not up to date and did not assist them to meet the people's needs and wishes.

We found most of the premises to be clean and fresh, however one of the bedrooms was not clean and hygienic and there was a strong odour that could be associated with urine.

25 November 2011

During a routine inspection

When we visited Jasmine House on the 25 November 2011 we had conversations with some of the people who live there and were also able to see the way that care and support was provided for them and the interaction between them and care staff. All of the interactions that we saw were appropriate and respectful with clear choices being offered to people who live in Jasmine House by care staff.

None of the people who live in Jasmine House suggested in any way that they were not well cared for, however at least one person was quite clear that they would prefer to live more independently, with less restrictions in place.

When we had a brief conversation with another person who lives in Jasmine House they said that they were 'ok' and that they were looked after well.

On this occasion we did not speak to people living in Jasmine House about assessing and monitoring the quality of service provision, however when we were looking at care plans we saw evidence of reviews of their care in which they were fully involved and we were also shown copies of surveys that are sent out periodically to people living in Jasmine House and those responsible for them that enable them to give their view of their experience of the care provided there.