You are here

The provider of this service changed - see old profile

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 23 September 2017

Jamie Cann House provides personal care and support to people living in their own flats in a sheltered housing complex. On the day of our inspection on 1 September 2017 there were 32 people using the personal care service. This service was registered under a new provider in August 2016. This was their first inspection.

There was not a registered manager in post. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC) 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. There was a new manager in post, their registered manager application was being processed by CQC at the time of our inspection.

There were systems in place designed to reduce the risks of people being abused, this included providing care workers with training and guidance. People’s care records provided guidance to care workers about how the risks in people’s daily living were minimised.

There were systems in place to calculate the numbers of care workers required to meet people’s needs. The service had taken action to address care worker vacancies. Where people required assistance to take their medicines there were arrangements in place to provide this support safely.

People were cared for and supported by care workers who were trained and supported to meet their needs. The service was working within the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2015. Where people required assistance with their dietary needs, there were systems in place to provide this support. People were supported to access health care professionals, where required, to maintain good health.

People told us that care workers treated them with respect. Care records guided care workers in how people’s privacy, dignity and independence was promoted and respected. People were involved in making decisions about their care and support.

People received care and support which was planned and delivered to meet their specific needs. There was a complaints procedure was in place. People’s concerns and complaints were listened to and addressed.

There was an open and empowering culture in the service. People were asked for their views of the service and these were valued and acted on. There was a quality assurance system in place and shortfalls were addressed. As a result the quality of the service continued to improve.

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 23 September 2017

The service was safe.

There were systems in place to reduce the risks to people and keep them safe from harm.

There were systems in place to calculate the numbers of care workers required to meet people’s needs. Action was taken to address vacancies. Recruitment systems were in place to reduce the risks to people.

Where people needed support to take their medicines they were provided with this support safely.

Effective

Good

Updated 23 September 2017

The service was effective.

People were cared for by care workers who were trained and supported to meet their needs.

The service worked within the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2015.

Where people required support with their dietary needs, this was provided. People had access to health professionals, where required.

Caring

Good

Updated 23 September 2017

The service was caring

People were treated with respect and kindness by their care workers.

People were consulted about the care and support they were provided with. People's comments were listened to and acted on.

Responsive

Good

Updated 23 September 2017

The service was responsive.

People’s care was assessed, planned and delivered to meet their needs and preferences.

There was a complaints procedure in place and people’s comments and concerns were addressed.

Well-led

Good

Updated 23 September 2017

The service was well-led.

The service provided an open culture. People were asked for their views about the service.

There was a quality assurance system in place. Where shortfalls were identified plans were in place to address them. As a result the quality of the service continued to improve.