Archived: Jeanne Jugan Residence

Updated 25 February 2015

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection checked whether the provider was meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Health and Social Care Act 2008. We also looked at the overall quality of the service and provided a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014.

We last inspected this location on 19th December 2013, when we found the service was meeting all the regulations we assessed.

This unannounced inspection was conducted on 14th January 2015 and was carried out by an Adult Social Care inspector from the Care Quality Commission.

Prior to this inspection we looked at all the information we held about this service, including notifications informing us of significant events, such as serious incidents, reportable accidents, deaths and safeguarding concerns.

The registered manager of the service had completed a Provider Information Return (PIR). This is a form that asks the provider to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they plan to make. Before our inspection we reviewed the information provided within the PIR.

We asked people who were involved with the service for their views about the overall operation of the home, such as GPs, community nurses and social workers.

During the site visit we spoke with 12 people who lived at the home and one visiting medical practitioner. We interviewed 11 members of staff and the registered manager. We examined the care records of four people who used the service and pathway tracked the care of two of these people. Pathway tracking is a method we use to look at the care and support people need and that which is provided from the time a referral is made to the present day.

During the site visit we toured the premises, viewing a selection of private accommodation, all communal areas of the home and parts designated for support services, such as staff areas and kitchen facilities. We observed the day-to-day activity and we looked at a wide range of records, including a variety of policies and procedures, training programmes, medication records, staff personnel files and quality monitoring systems.

Updated 25 February 2015

Jeanne Jugan residence is situated on a main road position in the residential area of Fulwood, on the outskirts of Preston city centre. Accommodation is provided for up to 43 older people, who require help with personal or nursing care needs.

Care is offered to people based on an ethos of Christianity, with management and senior staff belonging to the religious order, which is ‘dedicated to the neediest of the older poor’. The home is a large adapted property, so people who have a disability can be cared for with comfort. The home supports people for short to long term care. Ample parking is available and public transport links are nearby. Surrounding areas are easily accessible as the motorway network is within a short distance. The home is arranged over four floors, including a basement. Passenger lifts are available for access to all areas of the premises. Bedrooms, many with en-suite bathrooms, are situated on the two upper levels and are of single occupancy, although one twin room is available for those wishing to share facilities. Spacious dining rooms, communal and activity areas are provided. The home is run by the voluntary, non-profit making organisation, Little Sisters of the Poor and is regulated and inspected by the Care Quality Commission.

This unannounced inspection was conducted on 14th January 2015 by a lead Adult Social Care inspector from the Care Quality Commission. The registered manager was on duty at the time of our inspection. She had been in post for four years and associated with the organisation for many years. 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 and associated regulations about how the service is run.

At the time of this inspection there were 36 older people who lived at the home. We were able to speak with 12 of these people, who spoke positively about their experiences of living at Jeanne Jugan residence and they chatted freely about the staff team and the facilities and services available to them. We were also able to speak with a medical practitioner, who was at the home at the time of our inspection, as well as 11 members of staff and the registered manager of the service.

We received positive comments from everyone we spoke with. The feedback we received from one community health care professional told us, ‘The staff, from reception to senior nurses and sisters are always very organised, friendly, helpful and welcoming. They know the residents extremely well and can always answer any queries I have. Nothing is too much trouble for them. The home is always extremely clean. The residents are always clean and happy. I would have no hesitation recommending this home to anyone including friends and relatives.’

We looked at a wide range of records, including the care files of four people who used the service and the personnel records of two staff members. We observed daily activities and looked at how staff interacted with people they supported.

People who used this service were safe. The staff team were well trained and were confident in reporting any concerns about a person’s safety. They were competent to deliver the care and support needed by those who used the service.

Records showed that relevant checks had been conducted to help to ensure new staff members were suitable to work with this vulnerable client group.

The environment was safe and maintained to a good standard. People were supported to maintain their independence and their privacy and dignity was consistently protected. Staff were kind and caring towards those they supported and people who used the service looked comfortable in the presence of staff members.

The planning of people’s care was based on an assessment of their needs, with information being gathered from a variety of sources. Evidence was available to demonstrate that people had been involved in making decisions about the way care and support was delivered. This was supported by a robust person centred care planning system.

Regular reviews of needs were conducted with any changes in circumstances being recorded well. Areas of risk had been identified within the care planning process and strategies had been recorded.

People told us they were able to choose what they ate and this was confirmed by our observations of people being asked to select their choice of menu.

Staff we spoke with told us they received a broad range of training programmes and provided us with some good examples of modules they had completed. They confirmed that regular supervision sessions were conducted, as well as annual appraisals.

We established that the majority of staff members had worked at the home for many years; therefore the turnover of the staff team was very low, which helped to ensure continuity of care for those who lived at the home. Some staff we spoke with felt that the management of the home could be improved by senior staff listening to junior staff members and acknowledging their work, by occasionally offering praise and positive feedback.