Juniper Court Care Home

On this page

• Overview
• Person-centred Care
• Care provision, Integration and continuity
• Providing Information
• Listening to and involving people
• Equity in access
• Equity in experiences and outcomes
• Planning for the future

Responsive – this means we looked for evidence that the provider met people’s needs.This is the first assessment for this service. This key question has been rated good. This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

This service scored 75 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

The provider made sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they decided, in partnership with people, how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs.

People had individualised care plans to guide staff on how to support them. Care documentation contained information about people's daily routines, life history and specific care and support needs. This was reviewed monthly or when a person’s needs had changed. The provider was in the process of moving over to an electronic care planning system with the plan for everyone to be transferred by the end of July 2025.

Staff knew people’s preferences well and ensured people received care that was specific to them. People were supported to personalise their bedrooms, bringing in furniture, photos and pictures.

The provider understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was joined-up, flexible and supported choice and continuity.

People confirmed they could receive visitors and there were no restrictions. The local school visited the service enabling people to meet with young people. Activities were organised to support engagement and foster relationships.

Local church members were regular visitors to the home. An entertainer was visiting on day 2 of our site visit, people were seen singing along to the musician. Some people were dancing with staff and relatives. It was evident it was an enjoyable session for those that chose to take part.

Posters were on display throughout the home about a summer fair that was being organised where people could invite their family and friends. In addition, people from the local community were able to attend the event, which was being held in the grounds of the home with various stalls being promoted and other social activities. This enabled people to integrate with the local community.

The provider supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

The provider clearly displayed the service’s CQC ratings on their website. The provider’s web site clearly described the services available to people living at Warmley House. The home’s complaint policy was displayed in the main entrance along with the safeguarding policy.

The management and staff were knowledgeable about the accessible information standards and supported people in line with their choice. Documents could be produced in large print or alternate languages if needed. We observed a member of staff writing information for a person due to hearing loss, enabling them to make a decision on what they wanted to do.

Monthly newsletters were available to people using the service, which included important dates, celebrations, puzzles and introduced new staff.

The fire plan in the main entrance to the service did not have the correct bedroom numbers listed. This could be misleading for emergency services in the event of a fire and also for visitors, locating areas of the home where their friend or relative was living. We raised this at the time of the assessment and this was addressed immediately.

The provider made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. Staff involved people in decisions about their care and told them what had changed as a result.

People and their relatives were kept informed about any changes to their care. Relatives confirmed they had regular contact with the management of the service about any changes to a person’s medicines or if there had been any changes in presentation of their family member. Where people had been involved in an altercation, relatives confirmed they had been informed. The management team were aware of the duty of candour and knew they had to inform the relative and where relevant provide an apology.

Care reviews were organised involving the person and their relatives. Relatives confirmed they had liaised with the management team on making suggestions to improve the care. This included the specific times needed for supporting an individual with accessing the toilet, in line with what was provided before the person had moved to the home. Relatives confirmed their suggestions had been acknowledged and acted upon.

The provider made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.

People had access to health and social care professionals. Referrals were made promptly to ensure people had the equipment, care and treatment when they needed it. One person told us the staff were supporting them to get a new wheelchair to enable them to access the community safely.

People had care plans to promote good oral health care. However, not everyone was registered with a dentist. Assurances were provided that where people did not have a dentist, a referral would be made for urgent treatment. A chiropodist and opticians visited the service regularly. People had regular health reviews with the GP.

Staff and leaders actively listened to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes and tailored their care, support and treatment in response to this.

People’s diverse needs and equality characteristics were discussed prior to using the service. These included their religious beliefs, disabilities and cultural preferences.

Staff took into consideration any adjustments needed, such as specialist transport, when people attended external appointments. When needed, staff would support people to attend health appointments. Relatives were kept informed of any pending health care appointments enabling them to be involved and attend where relevant.

People were supported to plan for important life changes, so they could have enough time to make informed decisions about their future, including at the end of their life.

People's care plans included information about wishes they had for their care and support, when approaching the end of their life. This included whether people had decided to refuse resuscitation.

Some people were receiving respite care after a period of being in hospital or to give carers a break. People were supported to make decisions on whether they were able to return home or continue to receive care at the home. Respite care provided people with an opportunity to see what living in a care home was like and whether they wanted to become a permanent resident.