We carried out a review of the data available to us about Jane Percy House 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 Jane Percy House, you can give feedback on this service.
Jane Percy House is a residential care home providing personal and nursing care to 24 people at the time of the inspection. The service can support up to 26 people who have a physical disability.
People’s experience of using this service and what we found
Staff were exceptionally caring and motivated to support people to live independent, dignified and fulfilled lives. People were empowered by staff who supported and encouraged people to live the life they wanted, to achieve their goals and have a voice. A care manager said, “I feel Jane Percy House strives to make residents wishes a reality and does everything within their ability to improve the lives of each resident they provide care to.”
The registered manager had established a culture which place people, their hopes and aspirations, at the centre of the service. Staff worked to support people to achieve exceptional outcomes, including securing employment and independent living. People’s opinions were sought and valued and acted upon. Initiatives included people being members of health and safety committees, lobbying the local MP for improvement transport and being decision makers around staff recruitment.
Everyone we spoke with commented on how the staff and management worked together as a team which was often described as, “a family.” The whole staff team were approachable, knowledgeable, supportive and welcoming. There was an absolute focus on providing high quality care and support for people. This was achieved by listening and responding to people’s views and opinions as well as various quality assurance systems and audits. One person said, “The staff are great, they try their best for everyone, nothing is too much trouble.”
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.
People’s nutritional needs were incredibly well understood by a chef who took great care to make sure people’s dietary needs were met. Staff had an in-depth understanding of people’s complex needs and how each person wanted and needed their needs to be met. People were involved in all aspects of their care and support, as well as being involved in decision making around the environment, equipment and health and safety. People had been supported to lobby the local MP in relation to the provision of accessible public transport.
People said they felt very safe with the staff who were able to meet their needs well. Staff understood safeguarding procedures and any risks had been assessed and minimised. People were supported to take positive risks, particularly where this enhanced their independence, confidence and quality of life. Medicines were managed safely and people were supported to manage their own medicines were possible. Procedures were in place to prevent and control the risk of infection. People commented on how clean the home was.
People received individual care that was provided by staff who knew people, and their preferences well. Communication needs were assessed and understood by staff who adapted their communication to meet the needs of others. A range of activities were on offer, one person said, “I really enjoy the activities now.”
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 good (published 9 August 2017).
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 re-inspection programme. If we receive any concerning information we may inspect sooner.
At the last inspection in March 2015 we had rated the service as 'Good'. At this inspection we found the service remained 'Good' and met each of the fundamental standards we inspected.
People were protected as staff had received training about safeguarding and knew how to respond to any allegation of abuse. There were enough staff to provide individual care and support to people. Staff received opportunities for training to meet peoples' care needs and in a safe way. A system was in place for staff to receive supervision and appraisal and there were robust recruitment processes being used when staff were employed.
People had access to health care professionals to make sure they received appropriate care and treatment. Staff followed advice given by professionals to make sure people received the treatment they needed. People received their medicines in a safe and timely way. People who used the service received a varied diet and had food and drink to meet their needs.
The acting manager was meeting the requirements of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). Staff had a good understanding of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and best interest decision making, when people were unable to make decisions themselves. 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 were provided with opportunities to follow their interests and hobbies. They were supported to contribute and to be part of the local community. Staff had developed good relationships with people, were caring in their approach and treated people with respect. Care plans were in place detailing how people wished to be supported and people were involved in making decisions about their care.
Records showed people were supported to maintain some control in their lives. They were given information in a format that helped them to understand and encourage their involvement in every day decision making. There was regular consultation with people and/or family members. A complaints procedure was available and people we spoke with said they knew how to complain but they hadn’t needed to.
Staff said the acting manager and management team were supportive and approachable. Communication was effective, ensuring people, their relatives and other relevant agencies were kept up to date about any changes in people's care and support needs and the running of the service. The provider continuously sought to make improvements to the service people received. The provider had effective quality assurance processes that included checks of the quality and safety of the service.
Further information is in the detailed findings below.
We carried out an unannounced visit on 26 March 2015. The previous inspection was carried out on 4 June 2013 and the service was found to be meeting the standards of the five outcomes that were inspected.
The Jane Percy House provides accommodation and personal care for up to 26 adults with physical disabilities. The home is situated in near the centre of Cramlington, Northumberland. There were 24 people living at the home at the time of our inspection.
A registered manager was in post. 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.
The staff on duty confirmed they were aware of the policies and procedures the registered provider had in place to help ensure people were protected from harm and they had received training related to these. A system was in place to ensure people received their medicines when they needed them and all medicines were securely stored.
People said there were sufficient staff on duty to respond to their needs and the staff confirmed they had enough time to complete their duties each day.
Accidents and incidents were recorded and risk assessments were in place if any concerns were apparent. Health and safety checks were carried out on the equipment within the home and the premises were well maintained.
Records showed that checks were carried out prior to staff being employed in the home to ensure they were suitable to work with vulnerable people.
CQC monitors the operation of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). DoLS are part of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). These safeguards aim to make sure that people are looked after in a way that does not inappropriately restrict their freedom. The registered manager told us there was one DoLS authorisation in place where it had been necessary to restrict a person’s liberty in their best interests and to safeguard them from harm.
People said the food was good, they were given sufficient to eat and drink and they were always offered choice. Staff supported and encouraged people who required help to eat and drink.
Staff told us they had undergone appropriate training to meet people’s needs and the records confirmed this. The staff felt very well supported by the registered manager and received regular supervision sessions and annual appraisals.
We saw staff respected people’s privacy and dignity and this was confirmed by the people who lived in the home.
The records showed the staff made prompt referrals to health care professionals if required. A health care professional who visited the home regularly told us the registered manager was proactive and requested their input and advice when appropriate. New activities had recently been introduced to the home and the staff confirmed they were able to spend time with people on an individual basis.
People told us they knew about the complaints procedures and would not hesitate to use it if they had a problem or issue.
We looked at four care records and found people’s individual needs had been assessed prior to them using the service. Care plans had been developed to provide staff with information and guidelines about how needs should be met.
Surveys were sent to people who used the service to gain their opinion and meetings were held to discuss day to day issues in the home and to ask people if they had any suggestions to improve the service provided. The minutes showed that these were well attended.
The registered manager had carried out audits and checks to help ensure standards were met and maintained. A quality manager from the Trust visited the home each month and produced a written report of their findings and which included any actions required to ensure standards were being met and any improvements which were necessary.
people were asked for their consent before they received care and treatment.
People's care and support needs were appropriately assessed, their care needs were planned and their individual needs were met. People said the staff were polite and looked after them very well. Comments included, "The staff are well aware of my needs" and "Everything is great". We concluded that people's care needs were assessed and care and treatment was planned and delivered in line with their individual care plans.
We looked at equipment and facilities provided for the people who used the service. We found that people were provided with appropriate equipment which was well maintained to ensure their safety.
We found there were effective recruitment and selection processes in place so appropriate staff were employed to care for people who used the service.
We spoke to six people who told us they knew how to make a complaint and felt their comments would be taken seriously and investigated. They all said they had never needed to complain because they felt they were well looked after. We concluded people had their comments and complaints listened to, and acted upon, without the fear they would be discriminated against for making a complaint.