We carried out a review of the data available to us about Joseph Gardens 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 Joseph Gardens, you can give feedback on this service.
A registered manager was in post and present during the inspection. 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 registered manager is registered as manager of this service and another nearby service called Rascasse which is also registered with the Care Quality Commission.
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.
People who lived in the service appeared happy and looked at ease with staff. They were not able to talk to us about the support they received so we observed their care and support and spoke with a relative who was positive about the service and the approach of staff.
Risks to individuals were assessed and there were systems in place to reduce the likelihood of injury. This included undertaking checks on equipment to ensure that it was safe to use. The building was well maintained and was comfortable and homely.
There were sufficient staff to meet the needs of the individuals who lived in the service. The staff team worked across two services and some concern was expressed to us by a relative about the impact this had on consistency. The manager told us that they were aware of this and had some staff who worked more regularly at this service.
Medicines were safely managed and people received their medicines as prescribed.
Staff received training and support to enable them to meet the needs of the individuals they supported. Staff had a good understanding of the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005 and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards and there were systems in place to uphold people rights.
Individuals were supported to maintain a balanced diet and their dietary needs and preferences were identified and accommodated. Support was provided to access healthcare.
Staff demonstrated that they knew people well and supported people to maintain relationships with family members and to access the community on a regular basis.
Individual’s needs were identified and set out clearly in a support plan which was regularly reviewed and updated. Support plans provided information on events which could act as a trigger for an individual’s behaviour and set out how these events should be managed. The provider had a clinical team who worked with staff to reflect on individuals progress and how any issues could be addressed.
There were systems in place to support choice and decision making and people had access to a range of interesting and stimulating activities.
There was a clear procedure to address complaints and issues raised were promptly investigated.
Staff morale was good and staff were positive about the support they received from the management team. The provider had systems in place to monitor the quality of the service and drive improvement.
The registered manager was no longer working at the service and a new manager had recently been appointed who told us that they were in the process of applying to be registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC). 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 who lived in the service appeared happy and looked at ease with staff. They were not able to talk to us about the support they received so we observed their care and support and spoke with their relatives who were positive about the service and the approach of staff.
Risks to individuals were assessed and there were systems in place to reduce the likelihood of injury. However, people’s safety was at risk as the fire safety systems were compromised by the use of door wedges to keep doors open.
Individuals were supported by staff who were recruited in a safe way and had a good understanding of their roles and responsibilities. There were sufficient numbers of staff to meet the needs of the individuals who lived in the service. The staff team worked across two services and some concern was expressed to us about the impact this had on consistency. The manager agreed to explore this further with relatives and the staff team.
Medicines were safely managed and people received their medicines as prescribed.
Staff received training and support to enable them to meet the needs of the individuals they supported. Staff had a good understanding of the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005 and associated Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards. There were systems in place to uphold people’s human rights where their freedom of movement was restricted in their best interests. Staff received training in communication and used a range of methods to communicate with individuals and ascertain their views.
Individuals were supported to maintain a balanced diet and their dietary needs and preferences were identified and accommodated. Support was provided to access healthcare.
Staff demonstrated that they knew people well and supported people to maintain relationships with family members and to access the community.
Individual’s needs were identified and set out clearly in a support plan which was regularly reviewed and updated. The service was open to complaints and had effective systems in place to communicate with relatives about the care.
Staff morale was good and staff were positive about the support they received from the management team. There were systems in place to monitor the quality of the service and drive improvement.