Jack Gardner House

Jack Gardner House is a care home registered to provide accommodation, personal care and support for up to 15 adults with mental health issues. The home is operated and run by Jewish Care, a voluntary organisation. On the day we inspected there were 15 people living in the home.

People’s experience of using this service

People were very happy living at the home because they felt safe and all their needs were met by kind and caring staff. Relatives were pleased with the service provided to their family members and staff enjoyed working at the home.

Everyone we spoke with praised the registered manager and agreed that they were approachable, knowledgeable, fair and did their job well. A staff team who worked well together supported the registered manager. The provider employed enough staff to make sure people’s needs were met in a timely way. The provider had designed a recruitment process to make sure they only employed suitable staff.

The staff team was committed to providing a high-quality service and keeping people safe. They had undertaken training in a wide range of topics so that they were skilled and knowledgeable to effectively meet people’s needs. Staff understood their responsibilities to report any concerns.

Staff encouraged people to be as independent as possible and respected people’s privacy and dignity. All staff welcomed relatives and visitors warmly and treated them as part of ‘the family’.

Staff knew people well. They followed the guidelines in each person’s care plan so that they delivered care and support in the way each person wanted. Staff managed the risks to people’s health and welfare well.

The home was extremely clean, modern and well maintained. Staff used effective infection control measures to protect people from the spread of infection.

The home kept accurate records of medicines and staff were competent in administering people’s medicines.

The service had appropriate documentation in place in relation to consent and compliance with the Mental Capacity Act 2005. 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 registered manager actively sought the views of people and their relatives about the running of the home and they dealt promptly with any concerns that people raised.

The provider had a thorough system in place to monitor and improve the quality and safety of the service provided.

More information is in the full report.

Rating at last inspection

At the last inspection we rated this service Good. The report was published on 11 October 2016.

Why we inspected

This was a planned inspection based on the previous rating.

Follow up

Going forward we will continue to monitor this service and plan to inspect in line with our re-inspection schedule for those services rated Good.

Jack Gardner House is a care home registered to provide accommodation, personal care and support for up to 15 adults with mental health issues. The home is operated and run by Jewish Care, a voluntary organisation. At the time of our inspection 15 people were living in the home.

The home is purpose built and has bedrooms with ensuite facilities split across two floors. The ground floor has dining and lounge areas, and kitchen and a laundry room. The two floors are accessible via lifts and there is an accessible garden. The home is well located with easy access to underground train and bus facilities, and walking distance to local parks and shops. The Jewish learning exchange, the Jewish family centre and the Jewish cultural centre are nearby.

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 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

People using the service told us they felt safe at the service. The service had robust safeguarding policies and staff had a good understanding of the safeguarding procedure and the role of external agencies. Staff were able to demonstrate their role in raising concerns and protecting people from harm and abuse. The service had systems to identify and manage risks. Risk assessments were individualised and detailed information on safe management of the risks. The care records were maintained efficiently. Care plans and risk assessments supported the safe management of people's medicines. The service kept accurate records of medicines administered by staff and medicines collection. The service was clean and had effective measures to prevent and control infection.

The service followed safe recruitment practices. Staff files had records of application forms, interview notes, criminal record checks and reference checks. Staff told us they were very well supported by the registered manager. There were clear records of staff supervision and appraisal. Staff told us they attended induction training and additional training, and records confirmed this.

The service had sufficient numbers of staff employed to ensure that people’s individual needs were met. People and their relatives told us staff were always available and easy to get hold of. They told us staff were friendly and caring.

There was choice of food at meal times, and staff supported people to maintain healthy and balanced diet. People told us they were happy with the food.

The service operated within the legal framework of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). People told us staff asked their consent before supporting them. The registered manager and staff demonstrated a good understanding of the procedures under MCA and DoLS.

The care plans were personalised and people’s life histories, individual needs and likes and dislikes were recorded. The service was undergoing a review of people’s care plans to ensure they were more outcomes focused. People and their relatives were involved in planning their care. People and their relatives were asked about their views at residents’ and relatives’ meetings. People were encouraged and supported to carry out activities in and outside of the service. People and their relatives told us they were asked for their feedback and their complaints were acted upon promptly.

People using the service, their relatives and the staff team acknowledged that the registered manager ran the service efficiently. They were passionate and dedicated in improving lives of people by continually reviewing people’s care plans and to ensure the best possible outcomes. The registered manager worked in partnership with various local and national organisations, and with health and social care professionals to ensure the service supported people to maintain healthy lifestyle. The service promoted community environment within the service by encouraging people from the local community to participate in service’s various social activities.

The service had records of regular monitoring checks of various aspects of the service. The service maintained robust systems and processes to assess, monitor and improve the quality and safety of care delivery. The registered manager involved people, their relatives and staff in improving the quality of the service delivered.

Below is a summary of what we found. The summary describes what people using the service, and the staff told us, and the records we looked at. There were 13 people using the service at the time of our inspection. We spoke with four people who used the service, two care workers, a service manager, the registered manager and the deputy manager. We also spoke with a local authority social worker. We looked at four care records of those who used the service and four staff records.

Is the service safe?

One person who used the service told us 'I feel safe here. My things are safe too.' Members of the senior management team were on call 24 hour hours a day, seven days a week in case of an emergency. The service was staffed at all times. The provider ensured their staff had the skills and experience needed to support those who used the service. Care workers were trained in safeguarding awareness and demonstrated their knowledge of this to us. They also had an understanding of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and how it applied to those who used the service. A care worker told us how a risk assessment was to 'enable a person to achieve more, rather than it being used in a restrictive way.'

Is the service effective?

We spoke to those who used the service and were told they were happy with the care provided. A care worker told us 'this job is about helping people to move on, helping them to learn how to survive independently in the community.' A person who used the service told us, 'staff have helped me get things which have made me feel comfortable.' Staff told us they understood people's care and support needs and said they referred to the support plan at all times. We read one comment from family member which stated, 'thank you for the huge effort all you staff put in.' We saw from records how staff had received training to meet the needs of the people whom they supported.

Is the service caring?

We were told how respect for the dignity of the person was observed and how permission was sought before any personal care was given. Care plans were developed to meet identified needs, which were reviewed every six months. One person who used the service told us, 'the staff support me when I feel low.' It was clear from speaking with staff they understood people's care and support needs and how to deliver them. We observed how care workers gave encouragement to people to make their own breakfast. They responded quickly to calls for support and ensured their explanations were understood before moving on.

Is the service responsive?

People's needs had been assessed and support was offered to meet those identified needs. A local authority social worker told us, 'care workers are following the rehabilitation programme which the hospital set up when they were discharged.' Our observations of how staff worked with the person confirmed this. Records confirmed people's diverse needs and care and support had been provided which met their wishes. The service operated in line with Jewish observances.

Is the service well-led?

Staff had a good understanding of the philosophy of the service. They told us they were clear about their roles and responsibilities. Quality assurance processes were in place, tailored to the service provision. A local authority social worker told us, 'the registered manager is very hands on, and as a result, so is all the rest of the staff.' A care worker we spoke with told us how 'the manager wants to empower us to do the best we can.'

Care plans and other records showed that people's care was planned and described in a person-centred manner. Care plans were outcomes based, and we saw evidence that these were reviewed regularly and that the person, along with relevant professionals were involved in this process.

We spoke with two people using the service and observed people interacting with staff during our visit. People told us they enjoyed living at the home and that staff supported them. One person said, "It's wonderful here. The staff are wonderful." We saw staff engaging with people in a friendly and respectful manner. One staff member told us, "The information we are given is good and helps us to support people. It's not about what we think, it's the client who is important."

We saw that medicines were stored, managed, recorded and administered appropriately. Staff had received training in the safe handling and administration of medication.

We saw that effective recruitment processes were in place, and that checks had been undertaken regarding the suitability of staff prior to commencement of employment.

We saw that there was an effective complaints system in place. People were supported to make complaints and knew what to do if they had a concern.

We found the service to be responsive to people's individual needs and preferences. It has supported their moves towards greater independence and was protective of their rights to privacy. It has treated people with dignity and respect.

Staff were well lead and encouraged to develop their skills and abilities in a wide range of activities. They felt well supported by the manager. The provider was using a wide range of methods to obtain feedback and criticism from all the people who were involved with the service and had analysed and incorporated many ideas and suggestions into it.