You are here

SENSE Jenny Chapman House Good

Reports


Inspection carried out on 26 September 2017

During a routine inspection

This inspection was carried out on 26 and 29 September 2017 and was unannounced. At their last inspection on 2 November 2015, they were found to be meeting the standards we inspected. At this inspection we found that they had continued to meet all the standards.

Sense Jenny Chapman House provides accommodation for up to seven people with learning and physical disabilities. The home is not registered to provide nursing care. At the time of the inspection there were seven people living there.

The service had manager who was registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC). A registered manager is a person who has registered with the CQC 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 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

People’s medicines were managed safely, however, the records relating to medicines were not always accurate. In addition, although there were fire drills, a drill had not been completed, or considered as a need, during the night when staff numbers were at their lowest and people were in bed. There were systems in place to monitor the quality of the service. However, the quality assurance systems had not identified this as a requirement. These were areas that required improvement.

People were not able to tell us if they felt safe but we saw they enjoyed interacting with staff. Relatives felt people were safe.

There were sufficient staff to meet people’s needs. Staff were recruited robustly and had received regular training and supervision.

People had their rights respected and staff followed the principles of the MCA 2005. Consent was sought and choices were given. People received a variety of foods that they enjoyed and there were plans in place to ensure they received enough to eat and drink to maintain their health. There was regular access to health and social care professionals.

Relatives told us that staff were kind and staff told us how they promoted people’s identity and respected their preferences. People were supported in accordance with their wishes and preferences.

People received care that met their needs and support plans were detailed so that staff could provide them with care that was appropriate and safe. There were regular activities and outings on offer which supported people’s hobbies and interests.

There had been no recent complaints and people’s views were sought regularly. People and their relatives were involved in planning their care.

Inspection carried out on 25 September 2015

During a routine inspection

This inspection was carried out on 25 September 2015 and was unannounced.

Sense Jenny Chapman House provides accommodation and personal care for up to 7 people with sensory impairment and learning disabilities. There was a registered manager in post. 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 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

When we last inspected the service on 19 June 2013 we found them to be meeting the required standards. At this inspection we found that they had continued to meet the standards.

Care Quality Commission (CQC) is required to monitor the operation of the Mental Capacity Act (2005) (MCA) and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) and to report on what we find. DoLS are put in place to protect people where they do not have capacity to make decisions and where it is considered necessary to restrict their freedom in some way, usually to protect themselves or others. At the time of the inspection applications had been made to the local authority in relation to people who lived at the service and some were pending an outcome. Staff were fully aware of their role in relation to MCA and DoLS and how people were at risk of being deprived of their liberty.

People had their individual needs met, physically and emotionally. Staff knew people well and provided support in a timely manner. There was sufficient food and drink available and people were encouraged to participate in the preparation where able. Activities provided reflected the hobbies and interests of people and staff knew people very well.

People had regular access to visiting health and social care professionals. Staff responded to people’s changing health needs and sought the appropriate guidance or care by healthcare professionals. Medicines were managed safely to ensure people received them in accordance with their needs.

Staff were clear on how to identify and report any concerns relating to a person’s safety and welfare. The manager responded promptly to any feedback, however, no complaints had been received.

Many staff had been employed at the service for a number of years and there was a low staff turnover. Staff were recruited through a robust procedure and provided with regular training to ensure their knowledge was up to date. Staff were clear on what their role entailed and were invested in helping people to live their lives. People and staff were positive about the manager and their leadership. Staff shared the manager’s view on putting people first.

Inspection carried out on 19 June 2013

During a routine inspection

During our inspection we used an interpreter to help us gain the views of people who lived at the home. The two people who we spoke with told us they liked living at the home and liked the food. They said if they had any worries they could tell the manager and staff. We spoke with the relative of another person who lived at the home and they told us they were happy that their relative was living there. They said the staff understood and met their relative�s needs.

Before people received any care or treatment they were asked for their consent and staff acted in accordance with their wishes. Staff acted in accordance with legal requirements where people did not have the capacity to give their consent.

We spoke with three staff during our inspection. They talked knowledgeably about the needs and preferences of the people who lived at the home and we were able to find information about people�s care when we asked for it.

We saw staff providing care and support to people living at the home. They varied their approach and communication method depending on the person they were with. The staff gave people time to communicate and did not rush them.

We found staff were trained and supported to deliver care safely and to an appropriate standard.

People were protected against the risks associated with medicines because the provider had appropriate arrangements in place to manage medicines.

Inspection carried out on 6 December 2012

During a routine inspection

We used a number of different methods to help us understand the experiences of people using the service, because the people using the service had complex needs which meant they were not able to tell us their experiences. We spoke to two people who lived at the home. Both told us they were happy living there and liked the staff who supported them. We also spoke with the relatives of two people. Both said they felt their relatives� needs were met and that staff ensured they were involved in decisions about their lives.

During our inspection we spoke with four members of staff and observed them supporting the people who live at the home. Throughout our inspection staff demonstrated that they were very knowledgeable about each person�s needs. Staff used a variety of methods to communicate with the people living at the home. They were patient and repeated themselves when needed. When one person became excited, the staff were polite and firm in telling the person to be, �gentle� and offered activities in which they could participate.

We were concerned that not all staff had received up to date training in important areas such as moving and handling and infection control. This meant that people were at risk of being cared for by staff who may not be working to current good practice guidelines.

Reports under our old system of regulation (including those from before CQC was created)