Archived: Jubilee Court

Updated 3 October 2018

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 28 and 29 August 2018 and the first day of the inspection was unannounced. The inspection was carried out by an inspector and an expert by experience. An expert by experience is a person who has personal experience of using or caring for someone who uses this type of care service.

Before the inspection the provider completed a Provider Information Return (PIR). This is a form that asks the provider to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they plan to make. We reviewed the information we held about the home, including previous inspection reports. We contacted the local authority to obtain their views about the care provided. We considered the information which had been shared with us by the local authority and other people, looked at notifications which had been submitted. A notification is information about important events which the provider is required to tell us about by law.

During the inspection we reviewed the records of the home. These included four staff recruitment files, training and supervision records, medicine records, complaint records, accidents and incidents, quality audits and policies and procedures along with information in regard to the upkeep of the premises.

We also looked at five care plans and risk assessments along with other relevant documentation to support our findings. This included ‘pathway tracking’ people living at the home. This is when we check that the care detailed in individual plans matches the experience of the person receiving care. It is an important part of our inspection, as it allows us to capture information about a sample of people receiving care.

During the inspection, we spoke with nine people who lived at the home, one visitor and sixteen staff members, this included the manager and provider. Following the inspection, we contacted four health and social care professionals who visit the service to ask for their feedback.

We spent time observing people in areas throughout the home and were able to see the interaction between people and staff. We watched how people were being cared for by staff in communal areas. This included the lunchtime meals.

Updated 3 October 2018

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.

The provider had applied to deregister the service. This is because the provider had changed the company name 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. The registered manager deregistration had taken place at the time of the inspection. There was no registered manager at 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. However, there was a manager at the service.

This is the first inspection for the service under this provider as it is recently registered with CQC.

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 manager and staff. The 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.