The Care Quality Commission
  • Care Home
  • Care home

Archived: Ella and Ridley Jacobs House

19-25 Church Road, Hendon, London, NW4 4EB (020) 8203 5368

Provided and run by:
Jewish Care

All Inspections

14 October 2013

During an inspection looking at part of the service

We carried out this inspection to check whether the registered manager had made improvements in the service since we last visited on 10 July 2013. At that inspection we found the registered manager had failed to have suitable arrangements in place for obtaining, and acting in accordance with consent of service users. People were not enabled to make specific decisions related to the administration of covert medication (medication that is hidden in food or drink).

We saw that five people were on covert medication. We saw that in the past people had received mental capacity assessments under the Mental Capacity Act 2005. But these had not been reviewed for several years and people's capacity may have changed in that time.

At the inspection on the 14 October 2013, we saw that the manager had reviewed everyone who had been on covert medication. They had also put systems in place to gain and review consent from people who lived in the home. This ensured the decision was in each person's best interest.

Previously, the registered manager was unable to confirm if the homes medication cabinet complies with the requirements of The Misuse of Drugs (safe Custody) (Amendment) Regulation 2007. This was in relation of the storage of controlled drugs.

At the inspection on 14 October 2013, we saw the manager had purchased a new controlled drug cupboard and had written evidence that the remaining medication cabinet complies with legal requirements.

10 July 2013

During a routine inspection

We spoke with six people who lived at the home; all said that the staff treated them with dignity and respect. The home had six people on covert medication this is when medication is hidden in food to be given. The home did not have updated capacity assessments in place for these people as required by the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005.

Risk assessments and care plans were up to date and reviewed regularly with relatives input. People we talked with and who understood what a care plan was, said "I know all about my care the staff and I talk about it sometimes." This showed that people's needs had been identified, they were involved in developing their care plans and their needs were being provided for.

People we spoke with said the medication arrived on time. One person said 'I know everything about my tablets."

All the people who we spoke with believed there were enough staff to provide care for them. One person said "I think the staff are remarkable, each shift has enough staff to look after me."

We spoke with six people who use the service. One said "It's all good here, I've got no complaints. "We spoke with a relative who told us "the staff are nice, friendly and kind. The rooms are bit a basic but the food is good."

24 January 2013

During a routine inspection

The service provided care with dignity and respect to people who use the service who had a wide range of care needs associated with ageing processes such as dementia. Support was given according to their preferences.

Participation in social activities in the service by relatives was welcomed by the provider and the staff. The service has taken an active part in the local Jewish community. People's cultural wishes were respected and their choices facilitated.

People had been assessed before admission and support needs and risks were assessed and regularly reviewed. People enjoyed a range of participatory activities. They were kept safe from abuse.

Staff received specialist training in dementia care. The manager had been working to address a number of issues, particularly around staff supervision. She had investigated complaints and had taken these and suggestions into account to improve the service.

She had worked hard over recent years to improve the service and increase the independence and choices of the people using it. The provider had strived to improve the personal choices in the service and reduce the risk of it feeling institutional, despite its size. This was confirmed by the relative who told us the service 'makes people feel they are human beings [that matter]' and another who told us 'they [really] do care'. One relative told us that support staff had coped well with her mother's challenging needs.

28 November 2011

During a routine inspection

We spent the most part our visit talking with people and observing their interaction with staff and other people using the service. People told us the staff were "extremely nice". They said staff knew their needs and they felt they were treated with respect and dignity. People told us they attended monthly residents' meetings in which they talked about meals and the home. This indicated to us that people using the service were involved in their care and treatment.

People told us they were well looked after and, therefore, satisfied with their care. A person told us they had found the home to be "excellent" and had decided to continue to live here. Another person said the home was "like a hotel" and "staff treated [people] with manners".

From observations it was evident that people's cultural, dietary and religious needs were being met by the home. We observed and talked to a spiritual leader who confirmed they had been visiting the home almost daily for over twenty years to ensure that people's dietary and spiritual needs were met.

People confirmed that they had been involved in their care plans and had met with their keyworkers. From discussions with people and their files we noted that people received appropriate health checks from relevant health and social care professionals. We saw people had the necessary equipment such as wheelchairs, walking frames, and passenger lifts to access communal areas within the home.

People using the service indicated that they felt safe and trusted the staff. They said the staff were kind and "they never have been rude to anybody". A person said: "Staff couldn't be better" and the home was nice. We observed staff were around to respond to people's needs and make sure that they were safe. Visitors told us they had confidence in the staff to make sure people using the service were safe and were protected from abuse.

We observed good interaction between people using the service and staff. We saw staff saw sitting by people's side when supporting them with their meals. This indicated that staff treated people with respect and met their needs.

People were positive about the quality of care they received at the home. A person said "the home was like a hotel" and they were satisfied with their care. We noted that people were asked by a member of staff after every meal to comment how they felt about the food. We checked the records of people's comments and found out that people were able to influence the quality and type of meals provided at the home.