You are here

Archived: Jubilee Gardens Good

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 24 June 2016

This inspection took place on 20 May 2016. The inspection was unannounced which meant the staff and provider did not know we would be inspecting the service.

The service was last inspected in May 2015. At that inspection we found the service was in breach of regulations in that some checks had not been undertaken in order to ensure that people were being supported in a safe, suitable environment. For example, the window restrictors that were in place were not effective and did not meet published guidance; this was because the mechanism could be overridden. You can read the report from our last inspections, by selecting the 'all reports' link for ‘Jubilee.Gardens’ on our website at www.cqc.org.uk

Jubilee Gardens provides supported accommodation and personal care for up to 16 people with enduring mental health needs aged 18 years and over. People access the service for a maximum of two years; within this period of time they receive support to develop their skills in order to live independently. Staff are based on site 24 hours a day and provide practical and emotional support to people. At the time of this inspection 6 people were using the service.

The home had a registered manager. However, they were on leave at the time of the inspection and we were supported in the inspection by the project lead. 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.

At this inspection we found improvements had been made since our last inspection in May 2015 and no further breaches were identified. The window restrictors had been replaced, audit system checks for the window restrictors introduced, and staff awareness of the associated risks had been raised.

People received their medicines safety and appropriately and were supported to manage their own medicines in a planned way. Changes had been made, and the room used to store medicines helped to ensure they were always stored at the required temperature.

We found that some areas of the building were in need of refurbishment to help maintain good standards of cleanliness. For instance, in the kitchen used by the people for making breakfast, snacks and drinks the kitchen units were tired and the work surface was worn.

People told us they felt safe at Jubilee Gardens. Staff knew how to recognise and report signs of abuse. They understood the individual risks associated with people’s care and protected them from harm. An effective recruitment procedure was in place to minimise the risk of abuse.

Staff were knowledgeable about the Mental Capacity Act 2005.

There were enough staff with the right skills and competencies on duty to meet people’s needs.

Staff received regular supervision and an annual appraisal of their work performance. They spoke positively about the training they received.

Healthy eating was promoted and people were encouraged to make healthy food choices, as well as to develop their cooking skills.

The service promoted and encouraged people to develop their independence skills in readiness for moving on from the project.

People’s needs were assessed before they entered the service. People told us they were fully involved in their support plans and were provided with opportunities to express their views about the support they received.

The staff team worked closely and effectively with health and social care professionals to make sure that people’s needs were met. Staff supported people to attend and access health and medical appointments when needed.

The support plans were centred on people’s individual needs and included information about their preferences, backgrounds and interests. People spoke positively about the social, therapeutic and educational activities and opportunit

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 24 June 2016

The service was safe.

Checks had been undertaken in order to ensure that people were being support in a safe, suitable environment.

People’s medicines were safely dispensed and recorded.

Staff had a good understanding of safeguarding people from abuse.

An effective recruitment procedure was in place to meet people’s needs and keep people safe.

Some areas of the building were in need off improvement, to help maintain good standards of cleanliness and infection prevention and control.

Effective

Good

Updated 24 June 2016

The service was effective.

Regular supervision and training were provided to support staff to fulfil their roles and responsibilities.

Staff had a good understanding of the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) and how this applied in practice.

Staff supported people to arrange and attend healthcare appointments and liaised with other healthcare professionals as required.

Caring

Good

Updated 24 June 2016

The service was caring.

People told us and out observations confirmed that the staff were kind and caring.

Staff had a good understanding of people’s individual needs and preferences.

People were provided with information about how to gain access to advocacy and other relevant support services.

Responsive

Good

Updated 24 June 2016

The service was responsive to people’s needs.

People were actively involved in the planning and reviewing their care. Support plans reflected people’s individual needs and preferences.

There was a good range of social, therapeutic and educational activities and opportunities.

People’s views were actively sought and acted upon.

A ‘link-worker’ was in place to help make sure that people received consistent, co-ordinated care when they moved between services.

Well-led

Good

Updated 24 June 2016

The service was well-led.

A system was in place to monitor and assess the safety and quality of the service.

There were opportunities for people, relatives and staff to provide feedback and influence the service.

Staff felt supported by the registered manager and the project lead. They enjoyed working at the service.

The staff team had developed good links with the local community and a range of other organisations to help meet the needs of the people who used the service.