Background to this inspection
Updated
4 September 2019
The inspection
We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (the Act) as part of our regulatory functions. We checked whether the provider was meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Act. We looked at the overall quality of the service and provided a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014.
Inspection team
The inspection was carried out by an inspector.
Service and service type
This service is a domiciliary care agency. It provides personal care to people living in their own flats.
The service had a manager registered with the Care Quality Commission. This means that they and the provider are legally responsible for how the service is run and for the quality and safety of the care provided.
Notice of inspection
We gave the service 48 hours’ notice of the inspection. This was because it is a small service and we needed to be sure that the provider or registered manager would be in the office to support the inspection.
Inspection site visit activity started on 31 July 2019 and ended on 1 August 2019. We visited the office location on both days to see the registered manager and office staff; to review care records; policies and procedures and records relating to the management of the service.
What we did before inspection
We reviewed information we had received about the service since the last inspection. The provider completed a provider information return prior to this inspection. This is information we require providers to send us to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they plan to make. We took this into account when we inspected the service and made the judgements in this report.
During the inspection-
Throughout the inspection we gave the registered manager and opportunities to tell us what improvements they had made since our last visit.
Most people were either not available or chose not to speak with us. However, we spoke with one person about their experience of the care provided. We spoke with a care worker, care co-ordinator and the registered manager. We reviewed a range of records. This included three people’s care records, medicine administration records, one staff file in relation to recruitment, staff supervision matrix, training data, policies and procedures and a variety of records relating to the management of the service.
We requested additional evidence to be sent to us after our inspection. This was received and the information was used as part of our inspection.
Updated
4 September 2019
About the service:
Jasmine Court provides care and support to people living in a specialist ‘extra care’ housing development in the High Wycombe area. Extra care housing is purpose-built or adapted single household accommodation in a shared site or building. The accommodation is bought or rented, and is the occupant’s own home. At the time of our visit there were eight people using the service.
Not everyone who used the service received personal care. CQC only inspects where people receive personal care. This is help with tasks related to personal hygiene and eating. Where they do we also consider any wider social care provided.
People’s experience of using this service and what we found:
People said they were safe from harm and knew what to do if they felt unsafe. Staff had received appropriate training to ensure people were kept safe from abuse. Risk management plans were in place to ensure identified risks were mitigated. We found there was enough staff to provide care and support to people. Recruitment processes ensured people received care from staff who were of good character, but job application forms were not always fully completed. We have made a recommendation about this in the report. Safe administration of medicines was in place and staff practices ensured people were protected from the risks of infection.
Assessments of people’s care and support needs confirmed people received effective care and support. Staff received appropriate induction, training and supervision. People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests. People’s nutritional needs were met where they required to be supported. The service ensured staff worked with health and social care professionals to ensure people’s health needs were met.
People spoke positively about the caring nature of staff. A person commented, “I would give them (staff) 10 out of 10, I am never disrespected, not once.” Staff had developed good working relationships with the people and demonstrated a good knowledge and understanding of people’s care, support needs and life stories. Plans of care instructed staff how to carry out personalised care. This included promoting people’s independence and treating them with dignity and respect. People were comfortable with the staff who cared and supported them and staff listened attentively to what people had to say. This was observed during our visits.
People said their care and support needs were assessed before they joined the service. This ensured the service could be responsive to people’s needs and provide them with the care they said they wanted. People said they were involved in decisions about their care. Care records confirmed what they told us. The service was compliant with the Accessible Information Standard by making sure the communication needs for people with disabilities and sensory impairments were met. People knew how to raise concerns and said concerns raised were responded to satisfactorily however, these were not always documented. We have made a recommendation about this in the report.
People spoke positively about the service and staff felt management were approachable and treated them fairly. Quality assurance systems in place to assess and monitor the service ensured people received good quality, safe and effective care. People were able to give their opinions about various aspects of the services received and these were responded to appropriately. The registered manager was looking at ways the working environment could be more inclusive to people and staff who belonged the lesbian, bi-sexual, gay and transgender (LBGT) community.
Rating at last inspection and update
The last rating for this service was good (published 31 January 2017).
Why we inspected
This was a planned inspection based on the previous rating.
Follow up
We will continue to monitor information we receive about the service until we return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If we receive any concerning information we may inspect sooner.
For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk