Jersey Road

Updated 4 January 2019

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 22 and 26 November 2018 and was announced. We gave the service 48 hours’ notice of the inspection visit because it is small care home. The registered manager may have been supporting staff or providing care. We needed to be sure that they would be in. The inspection was carried out by one inspector.

Before the inspection we reviewed the information about the service the provider had sent us in the Provider Information Return. This is information we require providers to send us at least once annually to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they plan to make. We also looked at notifications about important events that had taken place in the service, which the provider is required to tell us by law. We used all this information to plan our inspection.

We spoke with two people about their experiences of living at the service and we observed care and support in communal areas. We observed staff interactions with people. We spoke with nine staff, which included support workers, senior support workers, a positive behaviour support practitioner, the registered manager, the facilitation director and the nominated individual for the provider. On the second day of the inspection the registered manager was on leave so we spoke with a manager who managed another of the provider’s local services. They knew the service well.

We requested information by email from local authority care managers, commissioners and Healthwatch to obtain feedback about their experience of the service. There is a local Healthwatch in every area of England. They are independent organisations who listen to people’s views and share them with those with the power to make local services better.

We looked at the provider’s records. These included two people’s care records, which included care plans, health records, risk assessments, daily care records and medicines records. We looked at three staff files, a sample of audits, satisfaction surveys, staff rotas, and policies and procedures.

We asked the management team to send additional information after the inspection visit, including quality audits and staffing rotas. The information we requested was sent to us in a timely manner.

The service had been registered with us since 22 December 2017. This was the first inspection carried out on the service to check that it was safe, effective, caring, responsive and well led.

Updated 4 January 2019

The inspection took place on 22 and 26 November 2018. The inspection was announced.

Jersey Road 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.

Jersey Road accommodates up to four people who are experiencing mental health difficulties and learning disabilities or autistic spectrum disorder. All the people that lived at the service were men. There were three people living at the service when we inspected.

The care service has been developed and designed in line with the values that underpin the ‘Registering the Right Support’ and other best practice guidance. These values include choice, promotion of independence and inclusion. People with learning disabilities and autism using the service can live as ordinary a life as any citizen.

The service had a registered manager in post. 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 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

People's medicines were not always well managed; records were not always accurate. Medicines had not always been stored at the correct temperature. However, medicines were administered safely and there was clear guidance for staff on how to support people to take their medicines.

Fire safety was identified as an area for improvement during the inspection. Fire doors had been wedged open with wedges rather than being fitted with automatic door closure devices. These were immediately removed and disposed of during the inspection and the registered manager agreed to review fire safety with the provider.

Risks to people were assessed on an individual basis and there was comprehensive guidance for staff. People were kept safe from avoidable harm and could raise any concerns with the registered manager. There was enough suitably trained and safely recruited staff to meet people’s needs. People were protected from any environmental risks in a clean and well-maintained home. Lessons were learnt from accidents and incidents.

People’s needs and rights to equality had been assessed and care plans had been kept up to date when people’s needs changed. People and health and social care professionals involved in their care and support told us how their general health and wellbeing had improved since living at the service. Staff had the right induction, training and on-going support to do their job. People were supported to eat and drink enough to maintain a balanced diet and were given choice with their meals. People accessed the healthcare they needed and staff worked closely with other organisations to meet their individual needs. People’s needs were met by the facilities. 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 told us that staff were caring and the management team ensured there was a culture which promoted treating people with kindness, respect and compassion. Staff were attentive to people. The service had received positive feedback and people were involved in their care as much as possible. Staff protected people’s privacy and dignity and people were encouraged to be as independent as possible. Visitors were made welcome.

People received personalised care which met their needs and care plans were person centred and up to date. Where known, people’s wishes around their end of life care were recorded. People were encouraged to take part in activities they liked. There had not been any complaints but people could raise any concerns they had with the registered manager. The provider sought feedback from people and their relatives which was recorded and reviewed.

People were happy with the management of the service and staff understood the vision and values of the service promoted by the owners and management team. There was a positive, person centred and professional culture. The registered manager had good oversight of the quality and safety of the service, and risks were clearly understood and managed. This was supported by good record keeping, good communication and working in partnership with other health professionals. The management team promoted continuous learning by reviewing audits, feedback and incidents and making changes as a result.

Further information is in the detailed findings below.