You are here

We are carrying out a review of quality at Jabulani. We will publish a report when our review is complete. Find out more about our inspection reports.

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 6 June 2018

We inspected the service on 21 December 2017 and 4 January 2018. The inspection was unannounced on the first day. The inspection was prompted in part by notification of an incident following which a person who used the service was injured. This incident is subject to a criminal investigation and as a result this inspection did not examine the circumstances of the incident.

Jubalani is a ‘care home’. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as single package under one contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection. Jubalani accommodates up to 11 people in one building. On the day of our inspection 10 people were using the service, one person was in hospital.

The care service has been developed and designed in line with the values that underpin the Registering the Right Support and other best practice guidance. These values include choice, promotion of independence and inclusion. People with learning disabilities and autism using the service can live as ordinary a life as any citizen.

At the last inspection in April 2015, we rated the service ‘Good’. The service remains ‘Good’.

The service is required to have a registered manager and one was in post. 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. The service had a registered manager.

During this inspection we found the service was mostly safe during the day. However, medicines were not always stored effectively and the number of staff working at night left people at risk.

People were protected from risks associated with their care and support. Action had been taken to protect people from the behaviour of others living at the home, this included increasing the staffing levels. Systems to review and learn from accidents and incidents were in place. The manager worked closely with mental health professionals and social care professionals and risk assessments were on going. Staff were trained in systems to keep people safe and prevent them from harming themselves and others.

Staff understood infection control and there were systems in place to keep people safe and the home clean and fresh.

Where people lacked capacity to make choices and decisions, their rights under the Mental Capacity Act (2005) were respected. DoLS were used legally and effectively to protect people who did not have the mental capacity to consent to their care.

Staff felt supported and received sufficient training to enable them to effectively meet people’s individual needs. People’s mental and physical health was promoted and they were supported to attend health care appointments. People were supported to have enough to eat and drink.

People received person centred support which met their needs. Staff had an understanding of how to support people with mental health needs and all staff had read and understood people’s care plans. Policies and practices were person centred. Staff respected people’s privacy and their dignity was promoted.

People had care plans that provided an accurate and up to date description of their needs. People’s independence was promoted in a proactive manner, and some people were being assisted to move to more independent living.

People knew how raise issues and concerns. People had opportunities to partake in social activities in the community during the day. This was curtailed at night due to the timings of staffing rotas and shift changes.

The service was well led. The systems in place to monitor and improve the quality and safety of the service were effective. These included systems to record, analyse and investigate incidents which posed a risk to the health and wellbeing of people who used the service. Staff on duty when an incident happened, had a meeting to look at the events and lessons to be learned and actions to put in place to

Inspection areas

Safe

Requires improvement

Updated 6 June 2018

The service had deteriorated to Requires Improvement.

People’s welfare was not always promoted as there was not enough staff on duty at night to keep people safe. Medicines were not always stored according to guidelines.

Effective

Good

Updated 6 June 2018

The service remains Good.

Caring

Good

Updated 6 June 2018

The service remains Good.

Responsive

Good

Updated 6 June 2018

The service remains Good.

Well-led

Good

Updated 6 June 2018

The service remains Good.