We carried out a review of the data available to us about Jasmine Court Nursing Home on 6 July 2023. We have not found evidence that we need to carry out an inspection or reassess our rating at this stage.
This could change at any time if we receive new information. We will continue to monitor data about this service.
If you have concerns about Jasmine Court Nursing Home, you can give feedback on this service.
People’s experience of using this service and what we found
Since our last inspection it was evident the registered manager and the staff had made improvements, which had raised the standard of care people received in respect of reporting safeguarding concerns. Systems were in place to monitor safeguarding to ensure information was shared with the appropriate professionals and us. This formed part of the oversight and governance of the home.
People were treated with kindness, dignity and respect. Staff interactions with people were warm, kind and caring. People and their relatives spoke positively about the care and support.
People told us they felt safe at the home. There was sufficient staff supporting people who had been through a thorough recruitment process. Staff supported people to manage their medicines safety. People were protected from the risk of cross infection and appropriate guidance was followed.
People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice. People were involved decisions about how they wanted to be supported.
There were systems in place to monitor the quality of the care and support. The provider regularly visited the service to drive improvements and support the registered manager and the staff. There was an extensive refurbishment programme being completed within the home including carpeting, redecoration, improvements to fire safety and refurbishment of bathrooms.
For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk
Rating at last inspection and update
The last rating for this service was requires improvement (published 22 August 2019) and there were breaches of regulation. At this inspection we found improvements had been made and the provider was no longer in breach of regulations.
Why we inspected
This inspection was carried out to follow up on action we told the provider to take at the last inspection. We undertook this focused inspection to check they had followed their action plan and to confirm they now met legal requirements. This report only covers our findings in relation to the Key Questions safe and well-led, which contain those requirements.
For those key questions not inspected, we used the ratings awarded at the last inspection to calculate the overall rating. The overall rating for the service has changed from requires improvement to good based on the findings of this inspection.
We looked at infection prevention and control measures under the Safe key question. We look at this in all care home inspections even if no concerns or risks have been identified. This is to provide assurance that the service can respond to COVID-19 and other infection outbreaks effectively.
You can read the report from our last comprehensive inspection, by selecting the ‘all reports’ link for Jasmine Court Nursing Home on our website at www.cqc.org.uk.
Follow up
We will continue to monitor information we receive about the service, which will help inform when we next inspect.
Jasmine Court Nursing Home is a nursing home that provides accommodation with nursing and personal care for up to 24 people. When we visited, 18 people lived there. The property is set out over four floors and is situated close to the sea front in Weston Super Mare.
People’s experience of using the service and what we found:
Safeguarding concerns were investigated internally but not always reported to the local authority or the Care Quality Commission (CQC). The CQC had not been notified by the provider of all incidents which had occurred in line with their legal responsibilities. The systems in place to monitor and improve the quality of the service were not fully effective.
People told us they felt safe at the home. Staff felt confident to raise concerns with the registered manager and were aware of external agencies where they could report concerns. Staff supported people to manage their medicines safety.
We received some mixed feedback relating to the staffing levels. We reviewed staffing rotas that demonstrated there were enough staff available to meet people’s needs. Staff were recruited safely. Risks to people were identified and guidance was in place for staff to reduce the level of risk to people.
People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives. Staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests; policies and systems in the service supported this practice.
Staff received regular one to one supervision and told us they felt supported. Staff received a range of training to meet the needs of the people they supported.
Support plans were detailed and reviewed with the person and their relatives when possible. People’s healthcare needs were identified and met. Staff worked with a range of healthcare professionals and followed professional advice and guidance when needed.
People were supported by caring staff who worked towards promoting their dignity, privacy and independence.
There were systems to ensure care was responsive. People's concerns and complaints were listened and responded to. People has escalation plans relating to end of life care decisions.
People gave us positive feedback about the quality of care they received. The feedback on the leadership of the service and the registered manager was positive.
Rating at last inspection: Good (report published January 2017).
Why we inspected: This was a planned inspection based on the previous rating.
The overall rating for the service has changed from Good to Requires Improvement. This is based on the findings at this inspection.
We have found evidence that the provider needs to make improvements. Please see the ‘Safe’ and ‘Well-Led’ sections of this full report.
You can see what action we have asked the provider to take at the end of this full report.
Follow up: We will request an action plan for the provider to understand what they will do to improve the standards of quality and safety. We will work alongside the provider and local authority to monitor progress. We will return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If we receive any concerning information we may inspect sooner.
You can read the report from our last comprehensive inspection, by selecting the ‘all reports’ link for Jasmine Court Nursing Home on our website at www.cqc.org.uk.
Jasmine Court nursing Home is a care home providing accommodation for up to 24 older people some of whom are living with dementia. During our inspection there were 18 people living at the home. The property is set out over four floors and is situated close to the sea front in Weston Super Mare.
The service was last inspected on the 17th September 2015 when it was given an overall rating of 'Requires Improvement.' At that inspection, we found breaches of two Regulations related to consent to care and deprivation of liberty safeguards. We required the provider to make improvements to achieve compliance with these regulations.
The provider sent us an action plan, which detailed the action they planned to take to make the improvements that were required. At this inspection, we found that improvements had been made and legal requirements had been met. The overall rating of the service had improved.
The registered manager had resigned from the home the week before we visited. 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 already advertised for a replacement manager and was interviewing the following week.
The provider and registered manager from the provider’s sister home, who had been supporting the deputy manager and the staff following the departure of the previous manager, were present throughout the inspection.
The staff understood their role in relation to the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and how the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) should be put into practice. These safeguards protect the rights of people by ensuring, if there are any restrictions to their freedom and liberty, these have been authorised by the local authority as being required to protect the person from harm.
Staff confirmed they had been trained in how to identify and report any incidents of abuse they may witness.
Any potential risks to individual people had been identified and appropriately managed. For example, people at risk of pressure wounds had received appropriate nursing care to reduce the risk of their occurrence or recurrence.
People's medicines had been administered and managed safely.
There were sufficient numbers of staff on duty with the necessary skills and experience to meet people's needs.
Staff supported people to eat and drink if required. They ensured people at potential risk received adequate nutrition and hydration.
People were provided with support to access health care services in order to meet their needs.
Positive, caring relationships had been developed with staff to ensure people received the support they needed. They were encouraged to express their views and to be actively involved in making decisions about the support they received to maintain the lifestyle they have chosen.
People and their relatives were encouraged to express their views and make suggestions so they may be used by the provider to make improvements.
The inspection took place on the 17 September 2015 and was unannounced.
We inspected Jasmine Court Nursing Home in September 2014. At that inspection we found the provider to be in breach of regulation 10 assessing and monitoring the quality of service provision and regulation 20 records of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2010. These correspond to regulation 17 good governance of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014.
The provider wrote to us with an action plan of improvements that would be made. During the latest inspection we saw some of the improvements identified had been made.
Jasmine Court Nursing Home is a care home providing accommodation for up to 24 older people some of whom are living with dementia. During our inspection there were 19 people living at the home. The property is set out over four floors and is situated close to the sea front in Weston Super Mare.
There was a registered manager in post at the service. 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.
We received mixed feedback from people, relatives and staff about staffing levels. Some of the people and relatives we spoke with thought there were not enough staff on shift. Staff told us they were busy and they thought this was because there was a lack of senior staff. The registered manager had recruitment plans in place to employ and train senior staff.
During lunchtime staff appeared rushed and did not always support people in an inclusive way. People and relatives spoke positively about the food provided. People had access to food and drinks throughout the day and where people required specialised diets these were prepared appropriately.
We found people’s rights were not fully protected as the registered manager had not followed correct procedures where people lacked capacity to make decisions for themselves. Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) applications had not been made to the local authority where people were subject to continuous supervision and lacked the option to leave the home without staff supervision.
The registered manager had systems in place to monitor the quality of the service provided. Audits covered a number of different areas such as care plans, infection control and medicines. We found the audits were not always effective at identifying shortfalls in the service.
People and their relatives told us they felt safe at Jasmine Court. Systems were in place to protect people from harm and abuse and staff knew how to follow them. The service had appropriate systems in place to ensure medicines were administered and stored correctly and securely.
A recruitment procedure was in place and staff received pre-employment checks before starting work with the service. Staff received training to understand their role and they completed training to ensure the care and support provided to people was safe. New members of staff received an induction which included shadowing experienced staff before working independently. Staff received supervision and told us they felt supported.
People and their relatives told us they were happy with the care they or their relative received at Jasmine Court. One person told us, “The staff are warm, friendly and lovely.”
People’s needs were set out in individual care plans. People and relatives told us they were involved in the care planning process. The care plans were reviewed and updated by the nurses.
People and relatives were confident they could raise concerns or complaints with the registered manager and they would be listened to. The provider had systems in place to collate and review feedback from people and their relatives to gauge their satisfaction and make improvements to the service.
We found breaches of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014. You can see what action we told the provider to take at the back of the full version of this report.
Some aspects of the service were not safe and these had not been identified or addressed by the provider.
People were supported by staff who were aware of their responsibilities to safeguard them from harm and to report any concerns.
Where people had identified risks, for example with their skin and falls, we saw that an appropriate assessment had been completed. A plan of support to ensure the person was supported safely by staff had been completed.
The provider operated a safe and appropriate recruitment procedure to help protect people from harm. We saw that appropriate pre-employment checks had been completed.
People were not always protected from the risks of unsafe or inappropriate care and treatment as their records did not always contain accurate and appropriate information.
We have asked the provider to tell us what they are going to do to meet the requirements of the law and the improvements they intend to make in relation to the record keeping within the home.
Is the service effective?
We saw that the service involved other healthcare professionals as required. People in the home had access to a GP who attended the home a minimum of once a month to see people who required medical assistance. We saw from people's care records that appropriate referrals had been made to occupational therapists and dieticians when required.
The home had ensured that where a risk had been identified, action had been taken. For example, we saw that when a person's skin damage had deteriorated, the home had responded to their needs by seeking the appropriate healthcare professional and had followed their guidance.
Is the service caring?
People who lived at Jasmine Court told us their needs were met and told us they felt they received a good standard of care. One person told us, 'They staff here look after me, they are very caring.' Another person who chose to spend the day in their room told us, 'They (the staff) always come and see me, I never feel alone.'
We spoke with one person who told us they had recently moved into the home. They said the staff had really helped them to adjust to their new lifestyle and surroundings. They told us, 'They (the staff) have made sure I'm ok and settled. They will do anything you ask to help you. They are friendly.'
We made observations where people received the support they needed and people told us their needs were met by staff. For example, where people needed hoisting to move from one chair to another, this was done in accordance with the person's needs.
Is the service responsive?
People told us they were involved in their care planning and decisions about care. We saw that people had been consulted during their care planning and had signed to confirm their involvement. In addition, documents showed that people had discussed their care with healthcare professionals such as an occupational therapist.
People who lived at the home were very complimentary about the staff employed at the home and the care they received. They told us they felt respected as an individual and they told us the staff listened to them. One person told us, 'I really feel I'm important to them (the staff).' Another person told us, 'I do as I wish all the time here, the staff respect that.' A person's relative told us, 'It seems very homely here, they (the staff) always let us know what's going on.'
Is the service well led?
Some aspects of the service were not well led and these had not been identified or addressed by the provider.
Staff at the home told us they felt well supported by the registered manager.
We saw that there were systems in place to monitor the quality and safety of the service provided. This included, for example, care reviews with people's relatives and comment cards to gather the views of the people who lived at the home and their relatives.
There were some suitable auditing system to manage the health, safety and welfare of people living at the home. These audits included the home's cleanliness and the safety of the environment. However, we found there was no system in operation that monitored the accuracy of people's care records.
Any accidents and incidents that occurred in the home were recorded and analysed to establish any trends.
We have asked the provider to tell us what they are going to do to meet the requirements of the law and the improvements they intend to make in relation to the monitoring of record keeping.
In June 2013 we identified people were at risk of acquiring an infection because appropriate guidance had not been followed. The bathroom floors did not have an unbroken washable surface to protect people from the risks of infection.
During our inspection we looked at the bathrooms and saw the flooring had been renewed. This meant the provider had taken action to minimise the risks of people acquiring an infection.
In January 2011 we recommended the provider sought to increase the available communal space, as the design and layout meant space was limited when all the people in the home were in the lounge at the same time.
We observed there were people in the lounge who were relaxing and saw there was plenty of space. Four people we spoke with told us they did not feel overcrowded. The provider told us they were progressing plans to increase the communal space.
People who lived in the home told us they were happy with the care and support they received. They told us they were involved in the running of the home through regular meetings.
One person told us, "It is good here, they look after me very well, and they always do things the way I ask them to". Another person told us, "The staff always respect my wishes".
The three relatives we spoke with all told us the care and support provided to their relatives was "wonderful," and "supportive." They said they found the staff approachable, friendly and helpful. We saw staff helped people to their rooms in order to have privacy during visits from relatives.
We observed the member of staff responsible for activities organised meaningful activities to meet individual choices. We saw staff treated people who lived in the home with respect and dignity.
Staff confirmed they were given the opportunity to build on their skills and received appropriate support from the manager and provider.
The home had quality assurance systems in place which ensured people were safe, and identified changes that could be made to improve the service provided.
The inspection team was led by a CQC inspector joined by an Expert by Experience (people who have experience of using services and who can provide that perspective) and a practising professional.
We used the Short Observational Framework for Inspection (SOFI). SOFI is a specific way of observing care to help us understand the experience of people who could not talk with us.
During our visit we spoke with nine people who lived at the home and four staff who worked at the home. We also spoke with relatives who were visiting people at the home. People told us that they liked living at the home and that staff involved them in their care and support. Some people told us that they attended review meetings to discuss their support needs.
Everyone we spoke with told us that the food was very good at the home and that they were given a choice of what they wanted to eat and drink. We were told that snacks and drinks were available throughout the day and observed that staff supported people appropriately with eating and drinking.
People we spoke with told us that they spent most of their time during the day in the home's lounge watching television. The manager and the staff we spoke with told us that this is what people wanted to do. However people told us that they were unable to go out of the home unless they had relatives to take them, and that there wasn't a lot going on at the home apart from watching television. Some people told us that a 'music man' came to the home on Tuesday and Thursday afternoons. People we spoke with were unsure if they were able to go to their rooms during they day, although three people told us that they thought they would be able to if they asked the staff. They also said that they liked being downstairs in the lounge with the other people.
Everyone we spoke with told us that they felt safe at the home and were aware of how to raise any concerns they had. One person said 'if I have some concern then I will tell my daughter to raise it with the matron.' Relatives we spoke with felt confident that action would be taken if they raised a concern with the manager.
Service users told us that they felt safe at the home and that staff,' Can't do enough for you'.
People told us that the food was 'lovely' and that there was plenty to eat at times that suited them. There was assistance for them to maintain their personal hygiene and that their privacy and dignity was respected. People told us that their rooms were warm and comfortable.
Overall people had positive comments to make about the home and we found that the majority of the essential standards were met. We had some minor concerns about some of the things we noticed when we visited. These were about the level of involvement and activities the service users experience in the home, the level of supervision and support for staff, the systems to keep the home clean and the space available for people.