• Care Home
  • Care home

Jersey Road

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

11B Jersey Road, Rochester, Kent, ME2 3PB

Provided and run by:
CLBD Limited

All Inspections

6 July 2023

During a monthly review of our data

We carried out a review of the data available to us about Jersey Road 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 Jersey Road, you can give feedback on this service.

22 November 2018

During a routine inspection

The inspection took place on 22 and 26 November 2018. The inspection was announced.

Jersey Road is a ‘care home’. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as single package under one contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection.

Jersey Road accommodates up to four people who are experiencing mental health difficulties and learning disabilities or autistic spectrum disorder. All the people that lived at the service were men. There were three people living at the service when we inspected.

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.

The service had 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 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

People's medicines were not always well managed; records were not always accurate. Medicines had not always been stored at the correct temperature. However, medicines were administered safely and there was clear guidance for staff on how to support people to take their medicines.

Fire safety was identified as an area for improvement during the inspection. Fire doors had been wedged open with wedges rather than being fitted with automatic door closure devices. These were immediately removed and disposed of during the inspection and the registered manager agreed to review fire safety with the provider.

Risks to people were assessed on an individual basis and there was comprehensive guidance for staff. People were kept safe from avoidable harm and could raise any concerns with the registered manager. There was enough suitably trained and safely recruited staff to meet people’s needs. People were protected from any environmental risks in a clean and well-maintained home. Lessons were learnt from accidents and incidents.

People’s needs and rights to equality had been assessed and care plans had been kept up to date when people’s needs changed. People and health and social care professionals involved in their care and support told us how their general health and wellbeing had improved since living at the service. Staff had the right induction, training and on-going support to do their job. People were supported to eat and drink enough to maintain a balanced diet and were given choice with their meals. People accessed the healthcare they needed and staff worked closely with other organisations to meet their individual needs. People’s needs were met by the facilities. People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.

People told us that staff were caring and the management team ensured there was a culture which promoted treating people with kindness, respect and compassion. Staff were attentive to people. The service had received positive feedback and people were involved in their care as much as possible. Staff protected people’s privacy and dignity and people were encouraged to be as independent as possible. Visitors were made welcome.

People received personalised care which met their needs and care plans were person centred and up to date. Where known, people’s wishes around their end of life care were recorded. People were encouraged to take part in activities they liked. There had not been any complaints but people could raise any concerns they had with the registered manager. The provider sought feedback from people and their relatives which was recorded and reviewed.

People were happy with the management of the service and staff understood the vision and values of the service promoted by the owners and management team. There was a positive, person centred and professional culture. The registered manager had good oversight of the quality and safety of the service, and risks were clearly understood and managed. This was supported by good record keeping, good communication and working in partnership with other health professionals. The management team promoted continuous learning by reviewing audits, feedback and incidents and making changes as a result.

Further information is in the detailed findings below.