James Court Residential Care Home

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 69 (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 promoted an open, honest culture around safety. Staff presented a positive and proactive approach to recognising and reporting concerns.

People reported feeling safe living in the home. Staff listened to views about safety, recorded safety incidents in detail, and told us incidents and accidents were discussed during handovers and team meetings.

Visiting professionals told us the provider implemented their recommendations. One visiting professional said, “We have been providing recommendations around trauma informed care to support people’s current needs, and the staff team has been able to implement this approach very effectively.”

During the site visit, we observed a near‑miss incident involving a person living in the home. Staff recorded the event in full, management reviewed information promptly, learning was shared with the staff team, and relevant professionals and family members were informed. A near‑miss refers to an unplanned event which almost resulted in harm, damage, or injury but did not progress to this point due to timely action or intervention.

A review of incident documentation confirmed how the manager conducted incident and accident analysis and there was a clear process for sharing learning with staff.

The provider worked with people and healthcare partners to establish and maintain safe systems of care. Safety was monitored routinely, and staff took clear steps to support continuity of care, including during movements between different services.

People reported feeling well supported when accessing the community. One person described the support they received from staff when they moved into the home, explaining this helped create a sense of familiarity and comfort.

Staff knew people extremely well and spoke confidently about preferences, interests, future goals, and aspirations. Care plans were person‑centred, detailed, and reflected people’s holistic needs and strengths. Risks were monitored effectively and reviewed regularly.

The provider collaborated with health and social care professionals to help people work towards personal goals and maintain health, ensuring coordinated and joined‑up care.

The provider worked with people and healthcare partners to understand what being safe meant to each person and the most effective ways to support this. Concerns were shared promptly and through appropriate channels.

People reported feeling safe with staff who supported them. One person said, “Staff help me, they are always there to help me.”

Easy‑read safeguarding information was readily available, which supported people to recognise unsafe care, abuse, and routes for raising concerns. Easy‑read information refers to accessible text presented in a simplified format using clear language and supportive imagery.

Staff demonstrated strong understanding of safeguarding duties and described clear reporting processes. One staff member said, “If I had any concerns, I would report these to the manager and the provider, if no action was taken, I would escalate concerns and use the phone number in the dining room.” The displayed number linked directly to the local authority safeguarding team.

A safeguarding policy was in place and accessible to staff, who described where this could be found.

Where people lacked capacity for specific decisions, detailed mental capacity assessments were completed, and appropriate Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) authorisations were obtained. 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 that people who did not have the capacity to agree to their care and treatment had the appropriate legal safeguards in place, including Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS).

The provider worked with people to develop a holistic understanding of individual risks and ways to manage these safely. Staff delivered care in a supportive manner which enabled people to pursue activities and routines that mattered to them.

People described how staff assisted them with assessing risks in the community. One person spoke about road safety and explained how staff offered prompts to look both ways before crossing. Another person described enjoying visits to a local pub to see friends and family. A further person, who chose not to drink alcohol, described risks connected with doing so.

Staff spoke about the importance of supporting people to make their own decisions and choices, explaining how these choices should be respected. One staff member said, “[People] make their own choices and we [staff] support them as best as we can. We encourage them as much as we can. For example, asking if they want to go for a walk or go to town, but it’s their choice.”

Risk assessments were in place and updated in line with people’s preferences and changing needs, reflecting current levels of risk and agreed support strategies.

The provider identified and controlled potential risks in the care environment; however, improvements were required to ensure the premises were well‑maintained, monitored and presented to a good standard.

People reported feeling at home within the service, and relatives described some positive changes to the environment. However, a further relative expressed concern regarding the overall condition of the premises and felt additional improvements were needed. Observations during the site visit showed refurbishment and redecoration were required to bring the home to a consistently good standard. The provider told us they had recently undergone construction and maintenance works and the work was on-going, including plans to refurbish parts of the home. They shared their action plan with us.

On the first day of the site visit, we raised concerns over a cupboard with COSHH items being left open and unattended, a staff member was cleaning in a different room [COSHH stands for Control of Substances Hazardous to Health, items include cleaning products]. The provider responded to our feedback and locked the cupboard. We checked again later; the cupboard was locked and on the 2nd day of our site visit, the COSHH items had been relocated and stronger security systems implemented.

People’s bedrooms reflected individual preferences and were personalised. The provider had recently experienced issues with a new boiler, which resulted in two bedrooms requiring temporary portable heaters. This issue remained under review with external plumbing professionals. The provider supplied appropriate risk assessments for the use of portable heaters and demonstrated awareness of associated safety considerations.

Internal and external health and safety checks were completed to monitor the safety of the premises, utilities, and equipment.

The provider ensured enough qualified, skilled, and experienced staff were available, and staff received effective support, supervision, and development. The staff team worked collaboratively to deliver safe care tailored to individual needs.

People reported receiving support when needed from staff. Relatives spoke positively about the staff team and described a caring approach. One relative said, “All staff are approachable, they always make me feel welcome. They really care about my [family member]. I always say my [family member] has 2 families, 1 here and 1 there.”

Staff spoke confidently about people’s needs, preferences, likes, and dislikes without the need to refer to written records. Observations during the site visit showed staff responding promptly to requests for support and staff spent meaningful time engaging with people throughout our site visits.

Visiting professionals reported strong staff knowledge of people’s needs. One professional said, “Staff know most of people’s medical history and bring the appropriate documentation to the appointment. Staff seem to know people’s likes and dislikes and they know how to support them during what can be a stressful period.”

Review of rotas, training records, and recruitment files showed enough suitably qualified staff were on duty and recruitment processes were safe.

Staff followed infection prevention and control (IPC) procedures when carrying out their duties. However, the condition of some areas of the home did not support safe infection prevention and control.

Staff adhered to required infection prevention and control measures. Observations during the site visits showed staff using appropriate personal protective equipment (PPE) and carrying out regular cleaning tasks. Despite this, several areas of the environment did not promote good IPC practice. Examples included a torn sofa, damaged carpets, and ingrained stains in communal spaces. The provider responded to feedback by replacing a sofa and sharing planned renovation works.

Staff explained the importance of thorough and regular cleaning to reduce the likelihood of infection and described clear expectations for day‑to‑day practice.

A review of infection control audits and management walk‑around checks showed ongoing monitoring of IPC processes. However, environmental renovation remained necessary to ensure the home could be maintained to a standard to maintain effective infection prevention and control.

The provider ensured medicines and treatments were managed safely and in ways aligned with people’s needs, capacities, and preferences.

People spoke about the importance of their medicines and described supportive practice from staff. One person said, “I will be poorly if I don’t take my tablets. They [staff] help me.”

The provider ensured people’s behaviour was not controlled through excessive or inappropriate use of medicines. Staff understood and applied the principles of STOMP (Stopping Over‑Medication of People with a Learning Disability, Autism or Both) and ensured prescribers reviewed medicines in accordance with these principles.

Medicines were handled safely by appropriately trained staff. People received medicines at the correct times, and regular reviews were completed to maintain safe and effective treatment.