Archived: Jasmine House Residential Care Home

Jasmine House is registered to provide accommodation and personal care for up to eight adults with mental health needs. At the time of our inspection Jasmine House was providing support to seven people.

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 were safe and secure. Relatives believed their family members were kept safe. Risks to people had been assessed appropriately. Staff understood the different types of abuse and knew what action they would take if they thought a person was at risk of harm. The provider had processes and systems in place that kept people safe and protected them from the risk of harm

There were enough staff, which were safely recruited and had received appropriate training so that they were able to support people with their individual needs.

People safely received their medicines as prescribed to them.

Staff sought people’s consent before providing care and support. Staff understood the circumstances when the legal requirements of the Mental Capacity Act (2005) and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) should be followed.

People were supported to have food that they enjoyed and meal times were flexible to meet people’s needs.

People were supported to stay healthy and accessed health care professionals as required.

People were treated with kindness and compassion. We saw that care was inclusive and people benefitted from positive interactions with staff.

People’s right to privacy was promoted and people’s independence was encouraged where possible.

People received care from staff that knew them well. People benefitted from opportunities to take part in activities that they enjoyed and what was important to them.

People felt confident to approach staff if they were unhappy or wanted to raise a complaint.

The provider had management systems in place to audit, assess and monitor the quality of the service provided.

We spoke with the manager and with staff on duty. We met all of the people that lived there and either observed them in the home with staff or spoke with them. We also later spoke with two relatives. Our conversations with people helped us to answer our five questions; Is the service caring? Is the service responsive? Is the service safe? Is the service effective? and, Is the service well led?

Below is a summary of what we found.

The detailed evidence supporting our summary can be read in our full report.

Is the service safe?

All of the people that we spoke with told us that they felt safe at the home. One person told us, 'I am safe here. I like it here.' Another person told us, 'I can have a key to my room if I want to. I'm safe here.' Both relatives that we spoke with told us that they felt their family member was safe at Jasmine House. One relative told us, 'I am very happy with everything.'

There was a system in place to record accidents and incidents. Staff spoken with showed that they were aware of the reporting system. We saw that the provider had taken appropriate action to reduce the risk of the reoccurrence of accidents or incidents.

There was a system in place to handle concerns and complaints. The provider told us that no complaints had been received since our last inspection in June 2013. Both of the relatives spoken with told us that they found the manager approachable and that they would raise a concern if needed. One relative told us, 'I've no complaints.' All of the people that lived there told us they would discuss any concerns with staff if they had any.

Records showed us that pre-employment checks had been completed on staff to ensure that they were suitable to work with vulnerable adults.

As part of our inspection we asked the provider about how they implemented the Mental Capacity Act 2005. They told us that they would make the appropriate referrals for people when needed. Care records showed that appropriate conversations had taken place to discuss whether one person should be referred under the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards. This meant that the manager was aware of their responsibilities under the Mental Capacity Act.

Is the service effective?

One person told us, 'I feel nervous going out alone but the staff support me to go out shopping.'

Staff spoken with demonstrated that they were aware of people's identified needs and how people should be supported to meet these. Staff showed an understanding of how to promote people's mental health wellbeing. This meant that people felt secure in their home and well supported with their needs.

We saw that people were supported to take part in individual activities that they had decided they wanted to do. Some people had their own key to the home and used a bus pass or ring and ride service to access shops for example. This meant that people took part in meaningful activities.

Is the service caring?

All of the people that we spoke with told us that they were happy there. One person told us, 'The staff are kind'. During our inspection we observed that people were relaxed with staff and positive interactions took place.

One relative told us, 'I think staff are caring. They keep me informed about things I need to know about.'

People that used the service and their relatives were asked for feedback about the quality of the service provided.

Is the service responsive?

All of the people spoken with told us that they felt the service met their needs. One person told us, 'The manager has put a stair lift in and this is helpful as I cannot manage the stairs as well now.'

Both relatives spoken with told us they had no complaints. One relative told us, 'I'm happy.'

Is the service well led?

We saw documented evidence that showed that the provider worked with other

health care professionals and made referrals for advice and guidance when needed.

The manager told us that some checks, such as staff spot checks and daily logs, were completed informally and not documented. They told us that they planned to build upon their quality assurance systems and would document their checks, such as audits on people's daily log records. We looked at some documented audits such as a medication checks and saw that this was effective in identifying when action was needed to make improvement.

We sampled records such as people's medication and financial records. We found these were accurate and up to date.

Staff spoken with told us that they found the manager supportive.

The people who lived at the home had mental health care needs. People told us about their experiences, we looked at records and observed staff caring for them. All staff we spoke to was able to tell us about people's needs so that they received care in a way that they preferred. Relatives told us they were kept informed about their relative's health so they felt involved in their care. One relative said, 'Since X has been there they have been very happy.'

We saw that people's consent was always sought before any care and treatment was carried out. One person told us, 'They always ask me if I want them to go ahead.'

We saw that people's needs were not reflected in their care plans and did not describe how people liked to be supported. This meant that people's care needs were not been fully met.

We saw that people were relaxed in their environment and that systems were in place to keep people safe from harm. One person told us, 'I feel very safe there.'

We saw that the provider had undertaken regular checks that included a health and safety audits of the home however, we did not see any systems to assess and monitor the quality of the service that people received.