You are here

Reports


Inspection carried out on 28 August 2018

During a routine inspection

We inspected Jubilee Court on 28 and 29 August 2018. The inspection was carried out by an inspector and an expert by experience. The first day of the inspection was unannounced. Jubilee Court 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.

Jubilee Court provides accommodation for up to 29 people in one adapted building. At the time of the inspection 24 people were living there. People were living with a range of needs related to their mental health or dementia. Some people’s needs were associated with old age. Accommodation is provided over three floors with a passenger lift that provides level access to all parts of the home.

There was a registered manager at the service. 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.

This is the first inspection for the service under this provider as it is recently registered with CQC. The service is also registered under the provider Imperial Healthcare Ltd which the provider has applied to CQC to deregister. This is because the provider had changed the company name to Jubilee Court Care Ltd and was required to register this with CQC as a new registration. This means there are two identical reports for Jubilee Court, one for each provider.

People received care that was safe. Risks to people were assessed and steps taken to reduce these without unnecessarily restricting their freedom. Staff had a good understanding of the risks associated with the people they looked after. Risk assessments provided guidance staff needed. There were systems in place to ensure people’s medicines were ordered, stored administered and disposed of safely. There were enough staff working each shift to meet people’s needs. The premises and equipment were safely maintained. Accidents and incidents were reviewed and action taken to reduce the likelihood of any reoccurrence.

People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff support them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice. There was a training programme for staff to help ensure they had the appropriate knowledge and skills to support people. Staff received regular supervision and appraisals.

People were supported to eat and drink a choice of food that met their individual needs and preferences. Their health and well-being needs were met. They were supported to have access to healthcare services when they needed them.

People were supported by staff who knew them well and were kind and caring. They were able to make decisions and choices about what they did each day. People’s dignity and privacy was respected and staff had a good understanding of what was important to people.

People received care that was person-centred and met their individual needs and choices. Staff knew people well and understood their care and support needs. There was an activity programme which people enjoyed participating in as they wished.

Complaints were recorded, investigated and responded to appropriately. People told us they were happy to raise any concerns with the registered manager and staff. The registered manager was well thought of and supportive to people and staff.

There were effective systems in place to assure quality and identify if any improvements to the service were needed. This included systems to gather feedback from people and staff which was used to improve the service.