You are here

The Kent Autistic Trust - 165 Jemmett Road Good

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 6 June 2018

Care service description

165 Jemmett Road is a residential care home for six people with learning disabilities. The service is a detached property, set over two floors in a residential area of Ashford.

165 Jemmett Road 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. 165 Jemmett Road accommodates six people in one adapted building.

Rating at last inspection

At the last inspection, the service was rated Good in Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and, Requires improvement in Well-Led

Rating at this inspection

At this inspection we found the service remained Good in Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and had improved to Good in Well-Led

Why the service is rated Good

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 life as any citizen.

At the time of the inspection a registered manager was not in post, which is a condition of the service’s registration. 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. The provider had recruited a manger that was going through the registration process at the time of our inspection. The service was managed day to day by the manager, who is referred to as such in this report.

The service continued to safeguard people from potential harm or abuse, and worked closely with the local safeguarding team. Risks to people had been assessed and mitigated, and people were being supported to take risks. People were supported by a stable staff team, that knew them well and had been recruited safely. There was an effective process in place for ordering, administering and disposing of medicines, which meant people received their medicines when needed. People were protected by the prevention and control of infection, the service was clean and tidy without odour. Lessons were learnt when things went wrong, and improvement plans put in place to ensure the best outcomes for people.

People’s needs continued to be assessed, and the service and Provider learnt from, and implemented best practice. Staff continued to be offered consistent training, which enabled them to care for people in the best way. People were encouraged to maintain a healthy diet, and were involved in the menu choice, and food ordering or shopping. During the inspection we saw examples of the service working internally and externally to deliver the best health outcomes for people. This included making sure people had access to a wide range of healthcare services and professionals. Staff had worked to adapt the service to meet the needs of people, supporting them to personalise areas, and creating spaces such as the sensory room for people to relax and enjoy. People’s consent was sought, and staff were working within the principles of the Mental Capacity Act (MCA). People 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.

The service was consistently caring. People continued to be treated with kindness and respect. People clearly liked the staff supporting them, and relative feedback was that people were consistently treated with compassion. People were supported in a variety of ways to have their views known, and the service continued to explore new communication m

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 6 June 2018

The service remained Good.

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 is Well-Led

There were effective systems to assess and monitor areas of improvement in a timely way.

There was a positive culture at the service.

People's opinions had been sought and used to make improvements at the service.

The service continuously learned and improved.

The manager worked in partnership with other agencies.