Archived: Jubilee Court

Updated 10 February 2017

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection was planned to check whether the provider is meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Health and Social Care Act 2008, to look at the overall quality of the service, and to provide a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014.

This inspection took place on 19 and 20 December 2016. This was an unannounced inspection. The inspection team consisted of two inspectors.

We focused on speaking with people who lived in the home, speaking with staff and observing how people were cared for. As some people had difficulties in verbal communication we spent time observing to see the interactions between people and staff. We used the Short Observational Framework for Inspection (SOFI). SOFI is a specific way of observing care to help us understand the experience of people who were unable to talk to us.

We looked at care documentation and reviewed records which related to the running of the service. We looked at six care plans and five staff files, staff training records and quality assurance documentation to support our findings. We looked at records that related to how the home was managed. We also ‘pathway tracked’ people living at Jubilee Court. This is when we look at care documentation in depth and obtain views on how people found living there. It is an important part of our inspection, as it allowed us to capture information about a sample of people receiving care.

We looked at areas of the home including people’s bedrooms, bathrooms, lounges and dining area. During our inspection we spoke with seven people who live at Jubilee Court, seven staff and the registered manager. We also spoke with three visiting health care professionals including an occupational therapist, a district nurse and a local GP.

Before our inspection we reviewed the information we held about the home, including the Provider Information Return (PIR). This is a form in which we ask the provider to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they plan to make. We considered information which had been shared with us by the local authority and members of the public. We reviewed notifications of incidents and safeguarding documentation that the provider had sent us since our last inspection. A notification is information about important events which the provider is required to tell us about by law.

The service was last inspected in September 2014 and no areas of concern were identified.

Updated 10 February 2017

The inspection of Jubilee Court took place on 19 and 20 December 2016 and was unannounced.

Jubilee Court provides accommodation and care for up to 29 people. At the time of our inspection 24 people were living at the home. All people at Jubilee Court were living with dementia and mental health type illnesses. People had various long term health care needs including diabetes and other conditions which impacted on mobility putting people at risk from falls.

Jubilee Court was on three floors with nine bedrooms on the first and second floors and eight bedrooms on the ground floor accessed by a lift. The ground floor included a kitchen, dining room with access to the garden, a main lounge and a quiet lounge.

There was a registered manager at the home. 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.

Throughout our inspection, people spoke positively about the home. Comments included, “I love this home. I love all the people and all the staff.” and, “I’m very happy here.” Although staff knew people well and had a good understanding of their individual needs and choices there were some inconsistencies of detailed written information which could leave people at risk of receiving care that was inappropriate or inconsistent. This had not been identified through the quality assurance system. We made a recommendation about quality assurance systems being applied consistently.

People told us they felt safe living at Jubilee Court. There were sufficient levels of staff to protect people’s health, safety and welfare. The provider had improved staffing levels based on the dependency of people’s needs.

Medicines were managed safely including PRN medication. The provider had put in place clear guidance for staff on the administration of PRN medicines.

People were provided with a choice of healthy food and drink ensuring their nutritional needs were met. Staff encouraged and supported people to eat and drink well. One person said, “The food is the best thing about living here.”

Staff knew the individual personalities of people they supported. We saw staff were kind, compassionate and patient and promoted people’s privacy, dignity and choice. People were encouraged to be as independent as possible and we saw friendly and genuine relationships had developed between people and staff. One person said, “Staff are kind and very considerate. I have no problems.” A staff member told us, “I treat the residents like family. I would be happy to have my mum here.”

Training schedules confirmed staff had received training in safeguarding adults at risk. Staff knew how to identify if people were at risk of abuse or harm and knew what to do to ensure they were protected. Staff had received regular supervisions with their manager to discuss additional training needs and development. Staff were encouraged to attend further training, with the majority having achieved Level 2 National Vocational Qualification (NVQ) in health and social care.

Robust recruitment and selection procedures were in place and appropriate checks had been undertaken before staff began work and staff received a range of training that enabled them to support people living at Jubilee Court.

People’s health and wellbeing was monitored and staff regularly liaised with healthcare professionals for advice and guidance. A visiting healthcare professional told us, “I feel safe about the residents’ care here.”

The Care Quality Commission (CQC) monitors the operation of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) and to report on what we find. We found appropriate policies and procedures were in place. The registered manager was familiar with the processes involved in the application for a DoLS, and had made the necessary applications to the authorising authority. Where people lacked the mental capacity to make decisions the home was guided by the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) to ensure decisions were made in the person’s best interests.

People’s friends and family were made welcome and relatives made positive comments about the service. One relative commented, “I have every confidence in the level of care and treatment of residents.”