Archived: Mali Jenkins House

Updated 21 October 2016

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 24 August 2016 and was unannounced. The inspection was conducted by one inspector and one expert by experience. The expert by experience had experience of supporting a family member who used care services.

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 home, what the home does well and improvements they plan to make. This information is used to help plan the inspection. We also looked at the information we held about the home. This included notifications received from the provider about safeguarding alerts, accidents and incidents which they are required to send us by law.

During our inspection we spoke with six people who lived at the home, five visitors or family members, four members of staff, the manager and the regional director. We also spoke with one health care professional. We used the Short Observational Framework for Inspection (SOFI). SOFI is a way of observing care to help us understand the experience of people who could not talk with us. We reviewed the care records for four people to see how their care was planned and looked at people’s medicine records. We also looked at staff records and records to monitor the quality and management of the home, including safeguarding and audits.

Updated 21 October 2016

This unannounced inspection took place on 24 August 2016. At our last inspection visit in May 2014, the provider was meeting the regulations we looked at. Mali Jenkins House is a care home which provides accommodation and personal care for up to 20 people. At the time of our inspection 14 people lived at the home.

The home has a manager in post that is currently being registered with the Care Quality Commission. 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 told us they felt safe in the home. Staff we spoke with were aware of their responsibilities to keep people safe and report any allegations of abuse. People’s individual risks were assessed and equipment was available for staff to use. People received their medicines as prescribed although some people’s medicines were not recorded accurately.

There were sufficient numbers of staff available who were safely recruited and received training to support people’s care needs. Staff understood the need to gain people’s consent before providing any support or assistance but had a lack of understanding of the principles of the Mental Capacity Act. Assessments of people’s capacity to consent and records of decisions had not been completed correctly in people’s best interest.

People enjoyed their food and had choices regarding their meals. People were supported to access health and social care professionals to meet their care and health needs. People told us staff were caring. People felt involved in their day to day choices and were supported by staff to maintain their independence. People’s dignity and privacy was respected by staff.

People and their relatives were involved in developing their care plans and people received care that met their needs. People told us they were happy living at the home and took part in a number of different activities. People and relatives knew how to raise any concerns and were confident any issues would be addressed.

People and staff told us the management team were approachable and supportive. People and their relatives were encouraged to share their opinions about the quality of the service. Quality audit systems were in place and there was evidence that action plans were put in place where improvement was needed.