You are here

Archived: Jasmine Good

The provider of this service changed - see new profile

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 11 February 2017

This inspection took place on 12 and 16 January 2017 and was unannounced. It was carried out ¿by one adult social care inspector.¿

Jasmine provides care and support for up to seven people who have learning disabilities and ¿physical disabilities. The home has two distinct areas. People who live in the main part of the ¿home require 24 hour staff support. There is a one bedroom self contained flat for people who are ¿more independent, which is used for short stays. There were seven people living at the home at ¿the time of our inspection. Six people lived in the main part of the home; one person lived in the ¿self contained flat.¿

A registered manager was responsible for the home. 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 the last inspection on 1 and 3 June 2015 we found the provider to be in breach of Regulations ¿¿9, 10, 12, 16 and 18 of The Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations ¿¿2014. This was because people’s medicines were not well managed to ensure people received ¿them safely or effectively. People were not communicated with effectively and their choices were ¿limited. Staff practice was inconsistent and they were not well supported in their roles. People’s ¿independence was not supported. People were not always supported by staff they knew as staff ¿consistency and numbers varied. People’s care was not planned and delivered in line with their ¿current or changing needs. People’s care was not reviewed regularly. People’s activities and trips ¿out of the home were limited. There was a complaints procedure in place but complaints were not ¿well managed. We also found the provider to be in breach of Regulation 18 of the Care Quality ¿Commission (Registration) Regulations 2009. This was because the provider had failed to ensure ¿that they had notified us of all significant events as required by law.¿

We found the provider to be in breach of Regulation 17 of The Health and Social Care Act 2008 ¿¿(Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014. This was because people did not receive consistently ¿high quality care. There was a lack of consistent management and leadership of the service. The ¿systems in place designed to monitor the quality of the service and its compliance with the law ¿were not effective. After the inspection, we used our enforcement powers and served a Warning ¿Notice on the provider. This was a formal notice which confirmed the provider had to meet this ¿legal requirement by 11 November 2015.¿

We also recommended the provider reviewed guidance about best practice in and application of ¿the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards as people could not be ¿assured that others close to them were involved in making decisions for them if people were ¿unable to themselves.¿

At this latest inspection we found all the necessary improvements had been made. Our Warning ¿Notice had been complied with.¿

We spoke with one person at length about their service and had more limited communication with ¿two other people. We also used our observations and discussions with people's relatives and staff ¿to help form our judgements.¿

Staff understood people's needs and provided the care and support they needed. The home was ¿a safe place for people. One person said, ““It does feel safe living here. All of the staff are nice to ¿me.” One relative said, “It’s a safe place. We have no concerns about safety at all.”¿

People interacted well with staff. Staff knew people and understood their care and support needs. ¿People made choices about their own lives. Various forms of communication were used if people ¿were unable to use speech. People took part in various activities and trip

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 11 February 2017

The service was safe.�

People were protected from abuse and avoidable harm. Risks were �assessed and managed well.�

There were sufficient numbers of suitably trained staff to keep people safe �and meet their individual needs. Staff recruitment was managed safely.�

People were supported with their medicines in a safe way by staff who had �been trained.�

Effective

Good

Updated 11 February 2017

The service was effective.�

People made decisions about their lives and were cared for in line with �their preferences and choices.�

People were well supported by health and social care professionals. This �made sure they received appropriate care.�

Staff had a good knowledge of each person and how to meet their needs. �They received on-going training to make sure they had the skills and �knowledge to provide effective care to people.�

Caring

Good

Updated 11 February 2017

The service was caring.�

Staff were kind and patient and treated people with dignity and respect.�

People were supported to keep in touch with their friends and relations.�

People, and those close to them, were involved in decisions about the �running of the home as well as their own care.�

Responsive

Good

Updated 11 February 2017

The service was responsive.�

People, and those close to them, were involved in planning and reviewing �their care. People received care and support which was responsive to their �changing needs.�

People chose a lifestyle which suited them. They used community facilities �and were supported to follow their personal interests.�

People, and those close to them, shared their views on the care they �received and on the home more generally. Their views were used to �improve the service. Complaints were handled well.�

Well-led

Good

Updated 11 February 2017

The service was well-led. �

There were clear lines of accountability and responsibility within the �management team.�

The aims of the service were well defined and these were adopted by staff.�

Staff worked in partnership with other professionals to make sure people �received appropriate support to meet their needs. People were part of their �local community.�

There were effective quality assurance systems in place to make sure that �any areas for improvement were identified and addressed.�