Jasmine House

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.

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.

Enforcement

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

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.

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.

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.