Background to this inspection
Updated
11 February 2020
The inspection
We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (the Act) as part of our regulatory functions. We checked whether the provider was meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Act. We looked at the overall quality of the service and provided a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014.
Inspection team
The inspection was carried out by one inspector.
Service and service type
Jemini Response Limited at 41 Jerome Close is a ‘care home.’ People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as a single package under one contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection.
The service had a manager registered with the Care Quality Commission. This means that they and the provider are legally responsible for how the service is run and for the quality and safety of the care provided.
Notice of inspection
We gave the service 24 hours’ notice of the inspection. This was because the service is small and people are often out and we wanted to be sure there would be people at the home to speak with us.
What we did before the inspection
We reviewed the information we had received about the service since the last inspection. The provider was not asked to complete a provider information return prior to this inspection. This is information we require providers to send us to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they plan to make. We took this into account when we inspected the service and made the judgements in this report.
During the inspection
People had complex communication and support needs. We spoke with and observed all four residents of 41 Jerome Close. We spoke with eight members of staff including the provider, the registered manager, the deputy manager, three care staff and two administration staff.
We reviewed a range of records including four people’s care plans and medication records. We looked at three staff files in relation to recruitment and supervision and a variety of records relating to the management of the service for example, policies, procedures, quality assurance processes and audits. We pathway tracked two people. This is where we check that the records for people match the support they receive from the service.
After the inspection
We continued to seek clarification from the registered manager to validate the evidence we found. We spoke with three relatives and three professionals who regularly visit the service.
Updated
11 February 2020
About the service
Jemini response Limited at 41 Jerome close, Eastbourne, is a residential home providing personal care for up to four people. At the time of the inspection there were four people living at the service. People living at 41 Jerome Close were younger adults with learning disabilities, who had lived there since they were teenagers.
41 Jerome Close is a house in a residential area and has two floors. Bedrooms were on both floors and on the ground floor were a kitchen, communal dining/living room and an office. The home had a garden area with a patio.
The service has been developed and designed in line with the principles and values that underpin Registering the Right Support and other best practice guidance. This ensures that people who use the service can live as full a life as possible and achieve the best possible outcomes. The principles reflect the need for people with learning disabilities and/or autism to live meaningful lives that include control, choice, and independence. People using the service receive planned and co-ordinated person-centred support that is appropriate and inclusive for them.
People’s experience of using this service and what we found
The outcomes for people using the service reflected the principles and values of Registering the Right Support by promoting choice and control, independence and inclusion. People's support focused on them having as many opportunities as possible for them to gain new skills and become more independent.
People were mostly unable to tell us they felt safe but we observed people and staff together and could see that people were looked after well. Staff knew about risk and understood safeguarding. Relatives and professionals told us that the service was safe. Risk assessments had been completed, bespoke to people’s care and support needs. Staff were recruited safely and enough staff were on duty each shift to look after people. New staff went through a comprehensive induction process. Medicines were ordered, stored, provided and disposed of safely.
People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice. Staff supported people with this having regard to their best interests. We were shown a training matrix which was up to date and was regularly shared with the registered manager. Training was relevant to the needs of people and included mental capacity, safeguarding, autism and challenging behaviour. People’s nutritional and hydration needs were met and choice was offered. Support was in place from health and social care professionals.
Staff were seen to be caring and to respect people’s dignity. People’s privacy and were encouraged to be independent both inside the home and when accessing the community. People’s differences under the Equalities Act 2000 were explored and promoted.
Care and support were person centred and this was reflected in people’s support plans. Support plans were reviewed regularly and evidence of people, relatives and professional’s involvement was seen. Routine was important to people and this was managed by staff. Staff supported people with a range of weekly activities both inside the home and on trips out. A complaints policy was in place which was accessible to people and relatives.
People interacted in a positive way with the registered manager who took time with people to talk with them and support them. Relatives, professionals and staff all spoke well of the registered manager. A review of some audit processes was being carried out but key areas such as accident, incidents, medication and training were all reviewed regularly by the registered manager. Feedback was actively sought and action taken where appropriate.
For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk
Rating at last inspection
The last rating for this service was requires improvement (published 12 April 2019)
Why we inspected
This was a planned inspection based on the previous rating.
Follow up
We will continue to monitor information we receive about the service until we return to visit as per our reinspection programme. If we receive any concerning information we may inspect sooner.