The Care Quality Commission
  • Care Home
  • Care home

Jubilee House

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

26 Middleton Road, Shildon, County Durham, DL4 1NN (01325) 552000

Provided and run by:
Tees, Esk and Wear Valleys NHS Foundation Trust

All Inspections

26 April 2017

During a routine inspection

The inspection took place on the 26 April 2017. The inspection was unannounced and was carried out by one adult social care inspector and one inspector from the mental health hospitals team.

We last inspected the service on 27 and 28 February 2015 and rated the service as good. At this inspection we found the service remained good and met all the fundamental standards we inspected against.

Durham and Darlington Crisis Recovery House is an NHS service and provides short term support for people experiencing a crisis in their mental health. The local mental health crisis nursing team oversee all support provided and the service is led by a registered manager with support provided by support time recovery workers.

There was a registered manager in post. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the 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 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

There were safeguarding procedures in place. Staff were knowledgeable about what action they should take if abuse was suspected. The local authority safeguarding team informed us that were no safeguarding concerns regarding the service.

The premises were clean. Checks and tests had been carried out to ensure that the premises were safe. People were supported to manage their own medicines and lockable facilities were in place in each room. The service had clear policies and procedures in place to ensure people were assessed and supported to do this safely.

We found that recruitment checks were carried out to ensure that staff were suitable to work with vulnerable people.

Staffing levels were provided to meet the needs of people using the service. Due to the nature of the service and fluctuating levels of people using the service, we saw that measures were in place to source additional staffing through the registered provider if needed. We observed staff carry out their duties in calm unhurried manner and people accessed the local community. Records confirmed that training was available to ensure staff were suitably skilled. Staff were supported though an appraisal and supervision system.

The MCA provides a legal framework for making particular decisions on behalf of people who may lack the mental capacity to do so for themselves. The Act requires that as far as possible people make their own decisions and are helped to do so when needed. When they lack mental capacity to take particular decisions, any made on their behalf must be in their best interests and as least restrictive as possible. People can only be deprived of their liberty to receive care and treatment when this is in their best interests and legally authorised under the MCA. The application procedures for this in care homes and hospitals are called the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). Part of the assessment criteria for this service was that people had capacity to make their own decisions and were free to leave the service at any time. Therefore the service did not have any people subject to DoLS authorisations.

People's nutritional needs were met and they were supported to access healthcare services when required.

We observed positive interactions between staff and people who lived at the service. Staff promoted people's privacy and dignity. There were systems in place to ensure people were involved in their care and support and treatment.

Care plans were in place which detailed the care and support to be provided for people. These were written and overseen by the crisis team of nurses and therapists based at West Park Hospital

People were supported to maintain their links with families and their community mental health support teams. We saw the service provided support for issues such as housing and staff were knowledgeable about signposting people to a range of services that they may need. There was a complaints procedure in place. Feedback systems were in place to obtain people’s views.

The registered provider was meeting the conditions of their registration. They were submitting notifications in line with legal requirements. They were displaying their previous CQC performance ratings at the service and on their website.

27&28/02/2015

During a routine inspection

This inspection took place on 27 and 28 January 2015 and was unannounced. Durham and Darlington Crisis & Recovery House provides care and accommodation for up to 9 people. The provider for this service is; Tees Esk and Wear Valleys NHS Foundation Trust. The service specialises in the short-term care for people who would benefit from a planned admission to receive home treatment (that is not a mental health acute in-patient setting) which, due to social circumstance and family dynamics, may be challenging to deliver in the community. On the first day of our inspection there were a total of eight people using the service. This had increased to nine on the second day.

This is the first inspection for this service since it was registered in November 2013.

The home had a registered manager in place. 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 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

The service is also overseen by Durham and Darlington’s crisis teams.

Staff and visitors we spoke with described the management of the service as open and approachable.

Throughout the day we saw that people and staff appeared very comfortable and relaxed with the staff and the registered manager.

CQC monitors the operation of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) which applies to care homes. The Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) is part of the Mental Capacity Act 2005. They aim to make sure that people in care homes, hospitals and supported living are looked after in a way that does not inappropriately restrict their freedom. We discussed DoLS with the registered manager; she told us there were no restrictive practices that would deprive a person of their liberty during their short stay at the service.

All people who used the service were assessed as having capacity before their admission. The crisis team member told us that the service was never used for detained patients under the Mental Health Act.

Staff we spoke with said they received appropriate training. We saw records to support this. Staff had received training in how to recognise and report abuse. We spoke with three staff and all were clear about how to report any concerns. Staff were confident that any allegations made would be fully investigated to ensure people were protected.

Throughout the day we saw staff interacting with people in a caring and professional way. We saw a member of staff supporting one person with an activity. They were interacting happily and laughing together. We saw another had escorted a person to a hairdresser in the community. We noted that throughout the day when staff offered support to people they always respected their wishes.

We saw people smiling and happily engaging with staff throughout the two days that we were there.

We saw there was a daily activity programme that people had chosen to themselves. The support staff supported people to take part in group activities or on a one to one basis. We saw activities were personalised and we saw that people made suggestions about activities and outings at the daily meetings that took place.

People told us they were treated with respect and privacy was upheld. People received a wholesome and balanced diet and at times convenient to them.

Risk assessments were in place to support people to manage their medicines and manage their health in line with their personal intervention plans. The Trust had an effective complaints procedure which people felt they were able to use. We saw people who used the service were supported and protected by the Trusts recruitment policy and practices.

The service was clean and equipment used was regularly serviced.

The service had a quality assurance system, based on seeking the views of people. There was a systematic cycle of planning, action and review, reflecting aims and outcomes for people who used the service. However, other health and social care professional’s views about the quality of service were not sought by the provider.

Staff told us they received regular supervision. We saw records to support this.

We found that people who used the service and others were fully protected from premises that were very well designed and maintained to a very high standard.