Jasmine House

On this page

• Overview
• Learning culture
• Safe systems, pathways and transitions
• Safeguarding
• Involving people to manage risks
• Safe environments
• Safe and effective staffing
• Infection prevention and control
• Medicines optimisation

Risks to people had been planned and there were appropriate measures in place to guide staff to care for people in a safe way. People were protected from the risk of abuse and staff spoke knowledgably about how to keep people safe. Medicines were managed safely, and staff had regular training in the administration of medicines. People and staff confirmed there were enough staff to care for people in a safe way. Staff were recruited safely, staff received regular supervision and training to ensure they had the necessary skills and knowledge. The registered manager had good infection control measures in place and staff were carrying out regular audits. If incidents occurred, the registered manager and staff worked together to prevent reoccurrence.

This service scored 72 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

Staff had the necessary skills and training to manage when incidents occurred, one staff member told us, “We discuss incidents and accidents as part of handover, and we review practice and look at ways to make improvements."

The registered manager understood the importance of learning when things went wrong. There was effective systems in place to analyse data such as concerns raised, accidents and incidents and safeguarding concerns. This information was used to look for themes and trends and we could see clear action was taken to reduce the risk of future reoccurrence. This information and learning was shared with staff at handovers and during team meetings and supervision.

We did not look at Safe systems, pathways and transitions during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.

People were protected from the risk of abuse. One person told us, “Yes I am safe.”

Staff and the registered manager understood how to protect people from the risk of harm. The registered manager told us, " Safeguarding is essential and a main aspect of our work. It is vital that staff understand the abuse and triggers and we ensure that staff feel supported. "

The Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) provides a legal framework for making particular decisions on behalf of people who may lack the mental capacity to do so for themselves. The Act requires that, as far as possible, people make their own decisions and are helped to do so when needed. When they lack mental capacity to take particular decisions, any made on their behalf must be in their best interests and as least restrictive as possible. People can only be deprived of their liberty to receive care and treatment when this is in their best interests and legally authorised under the MCA. In care homes, and some hospitals, this is usually through MCA application procedures called the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). We found the service was working within the principles of the MCA and if needed, appropriate legal authorisations were in place to deprive a person of their liberty. Any conditions related to DoLS authorisations were being met. Mental capacity assessments were completed, and best interest decisions made with the involvement of relevant others, when needed. There was a safeguarding policy and procedures in place and staff were aware of these. Since the last inspection there had been no safeguarding raised however the registered manager had appropriate procedures in place should they arise.

Risks to people had been considered, assessed and planned for. One person spoke about taking positive risks, they told us, “Staff discuss the risk, and they guide me and give me their opinion."

The registered manager told us, “Staff have all of the information to support people to ensure they are protected from the risk of harm.”

We observed people were supported to remain safe in the home. People were actively encouraged to help with day-to-day chores and if a risk was identified, we observed staff working to find a solution.

People who used the service were protected from the risk of avoidable harm. Risks to people's safety and wellbeing had been assessed, managed and mitigated. Risk assessments were detailed and were reviewed and updated when people's needs changed. Risk assessments considered all areas of the person's care. The registered manager worked with health care professionals to review specific risk assessments when people’s needs changed. The environment and equipment were safe and well maintained. Audits were carried out regularly. Information was stored in a clear way and management had systems in place for auditing trends and responding to concerns if they arose. All safety checks were undertaken regularly including fire checks and were up to date and all remedial work had been carried out to a safe standard. People had personal emergency evacuation plans (PEEPS) in place, and these were up to date. They contained relevant information about the person, their needs and how staff should support them to safely evacuate in the event of a fire or emergency situation.

People lived in a home that was decorated nicely and had a very homely feel. The home was well maintained. The registered manager considered environmental risks to people when assessing their needs and they understood how to minimise potential risks to people.

The home was tidy, with fire exits clear of clutter and appropriately identified through signage. We observed that fire safety equipment was in place and in good working order.

The provider carried out regular servicing by external contractors on moving and handling equipment and fire alarms. An up-to-date fire risk assessment was in place and there were contingency plans to manage unforeseen events. There were effective operational risk assessments in place. For example, the business continuity plan detailed how people would be kept safe in the event of emergency such as loss of electricity or heating.

People told us they received support from the same consistent staff team and they enjoyed been with regular staff.

Staff told us there was enough staff to care for people. One staff member said they received excellent support from the registered manager in their role and they had received ongoing support through their induction, supervision and handovers.

There was enough staff to care for people and people were cared for in a timely way. One staff member told us, Yes, we have a full complement of staff which is good and people get to go out and do different things with staff.

Staff had the necessary training to provide care, and they had their competencies assessed regularly. New staff were supported with a period of induction, and they shadowed staff, staff received supervision which provided the opportunity to discuss their role. The registered manager used supervision as an opportunity to identify gaps in knowledge and identify training to support staff in their role. The service ensured staff had the knowledge and skills required to meet people’s needs. The provider followed safe recruitment practices and had ensured appropriate pre-employment checks were completed satisfactorily before staff were employed.

The home was clean and well maintained and people were supported to keep their room clean and tidy.

Staff told us they had adequate supplies of personal protective equipment (PPE) in place. We observed staff using PPE correctly when administering medicines. One staff member spoke about the importance of hand hygiene.

The provider had an up-to-date infection prevention and control (IPC) policy in place. Staff had received training in infection prevention and control. The registered manager had cleaning schedules in place and there was regular infection control audits carried out to review practice.

Medicines were administered safely. One person, told us, “Yes, I get my medicine and they always tell me what I am taking”. People were appropriately involved in decisions about their medicines. We observed one staff member giving the person their medicine. The staff used safe infection preventing processes while giving medicine, they gained consent and signed for medicines in line with the provider’s policy.

Staff spoke knowledgably about how to administer medication safely, One staff member told us, “We must access the risk assessment and monitor the medication to ensure it is prescribed safely. This is an ongoing journey “

The registered manager and staff were working within the providers medicine policy. Staff members had their competency assessed and received training to handle medicines safely. Some people were prescribed medicines to be taken on a when required (PRN) basis. Guidance in the form of PRN protocols was in place and staff were able to describe signs and symptoms they would look for in a person before administering the PRN medicine. Care plans had comprehensive information about people's medicines, and these were regularly reviewed when people’s needs changed. All medicines affecting people's wellbeing were reviewed every six and eight months and any changes recorded. The registered manager was carrying out regular audits of medicines and the local pharmacy had also completed an medicine audit.