You are here

Jemini Response Limited - 17 Jerome Close Requires improvement

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Requires improvement

Updated 4 December 2018

Jemini Response Limited - 17 Jerome Close 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. 17 Jerome Close provides social and residential care for up to three people with learning disabilities and autism. On the day of our inspection there were three people living in the home. People had a range of complex care needs associated with living with autism and some had overlapping conditions such as ADHD, bi-polar disorder and epilepsy. Jemini Response Limited - 17 Jerome Close is owned by Jemini Response Limited and has three other homes in the South East.

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.

This comprehensive inspection took place on 16 October 2018 and was announced. The service had 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.

At our last inspection we rated the service good. At this inspection we identified a breach of regulations so the overall rating is now requires improvement. Although the care provided was good, the records that demonstrated the running of the service were not up to date or accurate. The provider had recently identified that the systems for monitoring the service were not effective and had started to put in place better systems to monitor the service. We were given assurances following the inspection that these would be tightened up further. However, as care planning and record keeping had not been up to date or accurate, time was needed to fully implement these changes and embed them into everyday practice.

There were enough staff who had been appropriately recruited, to meet people’s needs. Staff had a good understanding of the risks associated with supporting people. They knew what actions to take to mitigate these risks and provide a safe environment for people to live. Staff understood what they needed to do to protect people from the risk of abuse. Incidents and accidents were well managed. People’s medicines were managed safely.

People’s needs were effectively met because staff attended regular training to update their knowledge and skills. Care staff attended regular supervision meetings and told us they were very well supported by the management of the home. People were encouraged to make decisions and choices. They were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.

People were treated with dignity and respect by kind and caring staff. Staff had a good understanding of the care and support needs of people and had developed positive relationships with them. People were supported to attend health appointments, such as the GP or dentist. Professionals spoke positively about the service. One health care professional told us, “Staff appear caring and seem to be able to manage clients and their complexities well and with compassion.” People had enough to eat and drink and menus were varied and well balanced.

Staff had a very good understanding of people as individuals, their needs and interests. People were supported to take part in activities to meet their individual needs and wishes. This included trips to the local parks, theatres, cafes and restaurants.

The

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 4 December 2018

The service was safe.

There were safe procedures for the management of people’s medicines.

Staff had a good understanding of the risks associated with the people they supported and knew how to recognise and report abuse.

Thorough recruitment checks were carried out and there were enough staff to meet people’s needs.

Effective

Good

Updated 4 December 2018

The service was effective.

Staff sought people’s consent before providing all aspects of care and support. Staff received specialist training to support people effectively.

People told us support was provided in the way people wanted to receive it.

The management team and staff understood their responsibilities in relation to the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards.

Caring

Good

Updated 4 December 2018

The service was caring.

People were cared for by staff that were kind and patient and treated them with dignity and respect.

Staff were committed to promoting people's independence and supporting them to make choices.

Staff adapted their approach to meet people’s individual needs and to ensure care was provided in a way that met their particular needs and wishes.

Responsive

Requires improvement

Updated 4 December 2018

The service was not always responsive.

Care plans did not give up to date and accurate guidance on how to meet people’s needs.

People received care tailored to their preferences. People were supported by staff that knew them well including their likes and dislikes.

Daily records demonstrated that people received person-centred care.

There was detailed guidance on how to communicate effectively with each person.

Well-led

Requires improvement

Updated 4 December 2018

The service was not consistently well led.

Record keeping was not always accurate or up to date. This had been identified before our inspection and systems were being developed to improve this.

Staff felt their views were listened to. The registered manager was available and they could talk to them at any time.