Jubilee House

On this page

• Overview
• Learning culture
• Safe systems, pathways and transitions
• Safeguarding
• Involving people to manage risks
• Safe environments
• Safe and effective staffing
• Infection prevention and control
• Medicines optimisation

Safe – this means we looked for evidence that people were protected from abuse and avoidable harm. At our last assessment we rated this key question Good. At this assessment the rating has remained Good. This meant people were safe and protected from avoidable harm.

This service scored 72 (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 had a proactive and positive culture of safety, based on openness and honesty. Staff listened to concerns about safety and investigated and reported safety events. Lessons were learnt to continually identify and embed good practice.

Incidents and events within the home were being recorded, considered and acted on if needed. The service monitored accidents and incidents for themes and trends.

We found the management team were open, transparent and keen to learn and develop to drive improvement at the service. For example, the managers at the service were eager to move further to digitalise the service’s documentation and administrative processes.

The provider worked with people and healthcare partners to establish and maintain safe systems of care, in which safety was managed or monitored. They made sure there was continuity of care, including when people moved between different services.

The service admitted people with care ensuring the service had all the information needed before agreeing to admit a person to the care home. This ensured that the person’s needs were fully met on admission and that they quickly became comfortable living at the home.

The main GP surgery worked closely with the home to ensure people’s health needs were met in a timely way. District Nurses were involved with some people’s health treatments. They said they had a close and trusting relationship with the staff and managers.

The provider worked with people and healthcare partners to understand what being safe meant to them and the best way to achieve that. Staff concentrated on improving people’s lives while protecting their right to live in safety, free from bullying, harassment, abuse, discrimination, avoidable harm and neglect. The provider shared concerns quickly and appropriately.

Staff knew how to protect people from abuse and who they would report any concerns to. People were being treated with respect and their dignity maintained. For example, staff were observed knocking on doors before entering peoples’ rooms and spoke in a kindly manner with people.

We saw records showing staff had received required safeguarding training and staff and managers were aware of safeguarding processes and how to use them if needed.

People can only be deprived of their liberty to receive care and treatment with appropriate legal authority. In care homes, this can be done through a procedure called the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS), which is part of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). We checked whether the service was working within the principles of the MCA and how they managed DoLS within the service. We found all those who used the service and did not have capacity to make informed choices, had a Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) application, or approved order in place.

The provider worked with people to understand and manage risks by thinking holistically. Staff provided care to meet people’s needs that was safe, supportive and enabled people to do the things that mattered to them.

Risk assessments relating to people’s health, safety and welfare were being completed and updated. Equipment to help people manage risks safely was in place including bedrails and movement sensors. People were involved in their care planning and risk assessments, where they had capacity to so. Where people did not have capacity to consent to necessary restrictive equipment put in place for their safety, their families were being involved in these decisions.

The provider detected and controlled potential risks in the care environment. They made sure equipment, facilities and technology supported the delivery of safe care.

The building was being maintained and repaired as necessary. For example, some worn out window frames were in the process of being replaced and the garden and car park were due to be improved.

The equipment used to meet people’s needs was both regularly serviced and well maintained by the service. Peoples’ rooms were comfortable, and the decoration was maintained and personalised to the person’s individual preferences. The equipment being used in peoples care was maintained in good working order.

The service had suffered a major mains water leak in the front hallway a few days before our first visit but by the time of our unannounced visit the repairs had been made with only minor repairs remaining. The provider had acted quickly and effectively to ensure the safety and comfort of the people at the service.

The provider made sure there were enough qualified, skilled and experienced staff, who received effective support, supervision and development. They worked together well to provide safe care that met people’s individual needs.

The provider’s staffing level assessment tool was regularly reviewed, to take account of the changing needs of the people living at the service. The number of care staff being provided was at the level stated as required by the service’s assessment tool.

When we visited the service most of the care staff (75%) had already completed the extensive mandatory training required by the provider. Care staff newly employed at the service were receiving a full induction training package to equip them with the skills to be a professional care worker.

The registered manager and the deputy manager were providing regular individual supervision to all the care staff. Staff were well supported to deliver care effectively.

The provider assessed and managed the risk of infection. They detected and controlled the risk of it spreading and shared concerns with appropriate agencies promptly.

The care home was clean and tidy on both our visits to the service. The home and fittings smelt fresh and were well maintained.

Staff wore gloves and aprons consistently when carrying out personal care to protect people from the risk of cross infection. All clinical waste was disposed of appropriately.

Laundry was now being sent out of the care home to be cleaned by an external contractor. This meant the laundry room was now unused for laundry washing. The registered manager said there were plans to make new and better use of the space in future.

The provider did not always make sure that medicines and treatments were safe and met people’s needs, capacities and preferences. Staff did not always involve people in planning.

During our first visit the temperature in the medicine’s storage room was found to be 27 degrees Centigrade. It was agreed by the registered manager that this temperature was too high for medicines to be stored at room temperature. By the time of our second visit a blind had been fitted to the window, and a daily record of room temperatures was being kept to ensure the room temperature did not rise to this level in future.

There were guidelines for staff as to when to administer ‘as necessary’ medicines (PRN). However, these did not detail the process to be used to decide whether to administer, and who was trained to make this decision. At our second visit detailed guidance for each individual PRN medicine had been introduced.

The melamine countertop in the medicines room was extensively chipped which meant that it was no longer an easily cleanable surface to maintain infection control in this clinical room. The registered manager said that this countertop would be replaced to provide a cleanable surface.

Medication was seen to be stored safely, records were well maintained, and Controlled Drug medicines were appropriately managed.