Background to this inspection
Updated
6 June 2018
We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection was planned to check whether the provider is meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Health and Social Care Act 2008, to look at the overall quality of the service, and to provide a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014.
This comprehensive inspection took place on 6 and 9 April 2018 and was unannounced. The inspection team consisted of one inspector.
Prior to the inspection, we reviewed information we held about the service, such as previous inspection reports, and any notifications received by the Care Quality Commission. A notification is information about important events, which the provider is required to tell us about by law. The provider completed a Provider Information Return (PIR). A PIR is information we require providers to send to us at least once annually to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they plan to make.
During the inspection we spoke with the manager, two senior care staff, two care staff, the regional manager, the business development manager, the quality and compliance manager, the manager of the day centre run by the provider, the positive behaviour manager, and an assistant positive behaviour manager. We looked at two care files and risk assessments, two health files, three recruitment files, medicine records, quality assurance surveys and audits. After the inspection, we spoke with one staff member and three relatives.
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 methods. People’s privacy and dignity was respected and promoted by staff.
Staff and the manager understood person centred care, and sought to implement it into all aspect of people’s lives. Staff worked to provide responsive care by holding regular reviews, which covered all aspects of people’s lives including relatives, care managers and healthcare professionals. People were engaged in a wide range of activities, personalised around their likes and dislikes. There had been no complaints since our last inspection, and the manager worked closely with people and relatives to resolve any issues before they escalated. At the time of our inspection no one was in receipt of end of life care.
The manager of the service promoted an open empowering culture for the service. Staff understood their responsibilities, and the manager understood their regulatory responsibility. Where necessary they had submitted notifications to the CQC and the rating for the service was clearly displayed. Risks were assessed and reviewed regularly. The manager had sought feedback from people and their relatives and staff told us their ideas and opinions were welcomed. There was a process in place to ensure lessons were learnt, and the manager had access to the funds they needed to ensure sustainability of the service. The manager worked in partnership with external organisations, including safeguarding, commissioning and services people used for their holidays.
Further information is in the detailed findings below.