Jendot

Jendot is a ‘care home’. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as a single package under one contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection. Jendot primarily supports people with a learning disability and accommodates four people in one adapted building. There were four people living at Jendot at the time of the inspection.

The care service has been developed and designed in line with the values that underpin the Registering the Right Support and other best practice guidance. These values include choice, promotion of independence and inclusion. People with learning disabilities and autism using the service can live as ordinary a life as any citizen.

There was a registered manager in post at the home. 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 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

The previous comprehensive inspection was completed in December 2015 and the service was rated ‘Good’ overall. At this inspection, the service was rated ‘Outstanding’.

Jendot is an outstanding service. It is focussed on the individual needs of the people. People and their relatives spoke overwhelmingly of the positive support, guidance and healthcare interventions people had received. They were full of praise for the staff in terms of their kindness and compassion. People were 'very happy' with the service they received. We received positive comments about their views and experiences. People told us they felt safe because the staff were 'Caring and enjoyed what they did'.

People received care from staff who were highly motivated to providing excellent levels of personalised care. People and their relatives were positive about the care and support they received. They told us staff were very caring and kind and they felt safe living in the home.

People and relatives we spoke with told us staff were outstandingly caring. They used words such as “Compassionate”, “Caring”, “Excellent” and “Highly motivated” to describe the staff. People and their families spoke of a service that was tailor-made for them and their families saying that staff went 'the extra mile'. Care staff spoke highly about the service provided. One said, “I love working here”. Another person said, “I am proud to be working here”. People told us they would recommend the service to others. There was a genuine sense of fondness and respect between the staff and people.

The service was exceptionally responsive to people’s individual needs and how they chose to lead their lives. The registered manager and staff had a ‘can do’ attitude and were creative in enabling people to overcome any perceived limitations and empower people to maximise their independence. The registered manager and staff had an excellent understanding of people’s emotional well-being and provided appropriate support to people.

Staff had been trained in safeguarding and had a good understanding of safeguarding policies and procedures. The administration and management of medicines was safe. There were sufficient numbers of staff working at the service. There was a robust recruitment process to ensure suitable staff were recruited. Risk assessments were updated to ensure people were supported in a safe manner and risks were minimised. Where people had suffered an accident, themes and trends had been analysed, and action had been taken to ensure people were safe and plans put in place to minimise the risk of re-occurrence.

Staff had received training appropriate to their role. People were supported to access health professionals when required. They could choose what they liked to eat and drink and were supported to prepare their own meals. People were supported in an individualised way that encouraged them to be as independent as possible. People were given information about the service in ways they wanted and could understand.

The service benefitted from strong leadership and we made a recommendation to support the development of outstanding leadership. People, staff and relatives spoke positively about the registered manager. Staff were encouraged to participate in decision making and decisions around improving the service. Quality assurance checks were in place and identified actions to improve the service. The registered manager sought feedback from people and their relatives to continually improve the service.

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 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

People received highly individualised care and support which reflected their lifestyle choices and their aspirations. They were fully involved in developing their care records and discussing how they wanted to be supported and embracing any ways in which they could become more independent. With staff help and guidance they were learning how to manage their own medicines and to prepare and cook their meals. Creative systems had been developed to make sure they managed their medicines safely.

People had opportunities to become active members of their local community using local facilities and engaging with people from all walks of life. They enjoyed a social life which included going to clubs, on holidays abroad and meeting with people important to them. People were volunteers at the local church, a farm and took part in a gardening project. People said they felt safe and talked through any concerns or problems with staff and the registered manager. One person told us, “This is a real family home”, “We are like sisters” and another person said, “Staff have really helped to support me”. Staff told us, “It’s a wonderful place to work” and “I love working here”.

People were supported by staff who had access to training to keep their knowledge and skills up to date. They attended team and individual meetings with the registered manager, who was open and accessible to their ideas and views. Staff were knowledgeable about people’s individual needs and supported them with sensitivity, respect and kindness. They provided reassurance when people were upset or anxious and compassion when people were unwell.

The registered manager monitored the quality of the service provided and promoted the rights of people living in the home, ensuring their “voice was heard” and they received the care and support they wanted to receive. She made sure the checks required by law were completed including the recruitment of staff, health and safety systems, and the management of medicines and prevention of infections. Resources were available to make environmental improvements. The registered manager and staff kept up to date with best practice and changes in legislation by networking or membership with local organisations and attending conferences.

Is the service safe?

Is the service effective?

Is the service caring?

Is the service responsive?

Is the service well led?

This inspection was completed by one inspector. This is a summary of what we found based on our observations, speaking with three people living in the home, talking with three staff and looking at records.

Is the service safe?

When people displayed behaviour which challenged others; staff dealt with it safely and respected people's dignity and protected their rights. Staff understood how to help people to become calm. Monitoring records indicated they followed guidance and the care plan which described how to support people when upset or distressed. A person told the provider, 'I trust staff in difficult times.'

People were involved in discussions about hazards they faced in their daily lives and how these could be managed. The lack of accidents and incidents indicated risk assessments were effective. Procedures were in place to manage foreseeable emergencies to make sure people remained safe.

A person told us, "There are no issues of safety here", "We recognise each other's personal boundaries". Another person said, "Staff help us to stay safe. Having a one to one (staff support) helps". Staff had completed training in the safeguarding of adults and information was provided about local procedures. Systems were in place to manage people's personal finances and to protect them from possible abuse.

The training needs of staff were monitored and they had access to a wide range of training programmes and courses. This ensured staff maintained their knowledge and skills enabling them to meet the needs of people living in the home.

Is the service effective?

People expressed their views about their care and support and these were taken into account in the assessment of their needs and the planning of the service. People were given information about the service they received. They said they talked to the registered manager and staff about how they wished their care to be provided. They told us "We have meetings to talk about things every weekend." We found action had been taken to make changes to the service provided as a result. For instance, the menu had been changed to try out new meals.

People's preferences and wishes about the way they wished to be supported were clearly noted in their care records. Our observations and discussions with staff confirmed their understanding of people's needs. They provided care which reflected people's needs, preferences and diversity.

Is the service caring?

We observed people being treated respectfully and sensitively. They were offered choices about how to spend their time. Staff supported people patiently and kindly and promoted their health and well-being. Staff were observed listening to people and promoted positive communication using the person's preferred form of communication. For instance, sign language.

People had information about the service provided. This was produced in easy to read formats reflecting their diverse needs. Staff had a good understanding of people's needs. A person commented, "I have bonded well with staff". Another person said, "Staff are nice, I have my favourites".

Is the service responsive?

People received care and support in accordance with their preferences, interests and aspirations including age, disability, gender, race, religion or belief. They made decisions about their lifestyle and were supported to access a wide range of community facilities. People told us they enjoyed going to college, for holidays, doing voluntary work and helping around their home.

People told us they talked with staff individually or as a group. We saw records of these meetings which confirmed people were listened to and action was taken about discussions which took place.

Is the service well led?

People were visited by representatives from other agencies which provided the opportunity for feedback to the provider about the quality of service provided. People said they raised concerns or issues with staff or the registered manager as they arose. The registered manager was accessible and available to both people living in the home and staff. Communication was open and robust enabling them to make changes to the service and to drive improvements. Quality assurance checks were completed to make sure the provider was able to make informed decisions about the service being provided.

We observed people making their lunch and drinks. They said they planned their meals for the week at a house meeting on a Saturday. They told us that if they did not like the main meal an alternative would be provided.

Systems were in place for the safe handling of medicines. We observed people having their medication safely and at times to suit them.

People told us there were enough staff on duty to help them do everything they wished to do. One person said,"it's good to know there are staff around to help when needed but also they give me the opportunity to be independent".

People's personal records and other records were kept up to date and securely.

We found that person centred care plans were developed with people. These had been produced in an easy read format using photographs, pictures and symbols. People told us their key workers talked to them about their individual needs. People's consent for the care and support provided was noted in their care records.

People had access to a range of health and social care professionals. The provider liaised and communicated effectively with others to ensure that was a co-ordinated approach to care and support.

A person told us they were involved in the planning of the redecoration and refurbishment of the home. They told us that equipment and adaptations were put in place for those people who needed them such as a wet room or ramps to the front and rear of the home.

We found that recruitment and selection processes made sure that checks were in place for new staff.