Jasmine Care South East Limited

Updated 12 December 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 the 31 October and 7 November 2018 and was announced. We gave the service six days’ notice of the inspection visit, as we needed to be sure that the office was open and the provider would be available to speak with us. The inspection team consisted of one inspector and one 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. The expert-by-experience for this inspection had experience in care for older people.

Before the inspection, we asked the provider to complete a Provider Information Return (PIR). This is a form that asks the provider to give some key information about the agency, what the agency does well and improvements they plan to make. We looked at other information we held about the service, such as, notifications. Notifications are changes, events or incidents which the provider is required to tell us by law. We used all this information to plan our inspection.

As part of the inspection, we spoke with the provider who was also the registered manager and three care staff. We spoke with four people that used the service and four relatives of people who used the service to gain feedback about the service they received.

We reviewed a range of records. This included three people’s care planning documentation, risk assessments and medicine records. We looked at documentation that related to staff management and staff recruitment including four staff files. We also looked at records concerning the monitoring, safety and quality of the service.

Updated 12 December 2018

The inspection was announced and carried out on 31 October and 7 November 2018.

Jasmine Care South East is a domiciliary care agency. It provides personal care to people living in their own homes in the community. It provides a service to older adults. The service provides additional services such as cleaning and shopping. Not everyone using Jasmine Care South East receives regulated activity; CQC only inspects the service being received by people provided with ‘personal care’; help with tasks related to personal hygiene and eating. Where they do we also take into account any wider social care provided. At the time of our inspection, the service was supporting 11 people.

At the last comprehensive inspection on 5 and 7 March 2018 the overall rating of the service was, ‘Requires Improvement’. We found four breaches of the regulations; Regulation 12, medicines had not been handled safely; Regulation 13, people had not always been protected from the potential risk of harm and abuse; Regulation 17, the provider had failed to operate effective quality assurance systems and Regulation 19, safe recruitment practices had not been followed to make sure people were protected from the risk of unsafe staff.

We made six recommendations for good practice; to make sure the data recorded regarding staff training is accurate; the provider addresses and records any concerns that are raised by staff, during supervision; the provider to obtain up to date information about the Local Authority Safeguarding protocol and procedures; the provider to make sure that the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 have been understood by the staff and complied with; the provider to develop a system to ensure people’s daily care records are available and audited on a regular basis; the provider uses concerns or complaints as a way to improve the quality of care they provide to people and the provider reviews the policies and procedures to ensure they are readily available for staff to access.

Following the last inspection, we asked the provider to complete an action plan stating what improvements they intended to make and by when to address our concerns. After the inspection the provider wrote to us to tell us they had made the necessary improvements

At this inspection we found that improvements had been made.

The provider had suitable processes in place to safeguard people from different forms of abuse. They knew what their responsibilities were in relation to keeping people safe from the risk of abuse. The provider recognised the signs of abuse and what to look out for. There were systems in place to support staff and people to stay safe.

The provider assessed people’s needs on their first visit to the person, and then by asking people if they were happy with the care they received. People were supported to plan their support and they received a service that was based on their personal needs and wishes, however records of support. The service was flexible and responded positively to changes in people’s needs. Some people were supported by their family members to discuss their care needs, if this was their choice to do so. People could express their opinions and views and they were encouraged and supported to have their voices heard.

Care plans contained information about people’s likes, dislikes and personal histories. People told us the staff were friendly and kind. Staff understood the importance of maintaining people’s privacy and dignity, whilst encouraging people to do as much for themselves as possible. People were supported to remain as healthy as possible. People were encouraged to make everyday choices about their lives. Staff asked people for their consent prior to offering care and support.

People were supported with meal planning, preparation, eating and drinking if and when required.

Staff supported people, by contacting the office to alert the provider, to any identified health needs so that their doctor or nurse could be informed.

The provider followed recruitment procedures to check that potential staff employed were of good character and had the skills and experience needed to carry out their roles.

The provider deployed sufficient numbers of staff to meet people’s needs and provide a flexible service.

Staff had received training as is necessary to enable them to carry out the duties they are employed to perform. All staff received induction training at the start of their employment. Refresher training was provided at regular intervals.

Staff followed an up to date medicines policy issued by the provider and they were assessed against this by the provider. Staff were trained to meet people’s needs and were supported through regular supervision and an annual appraisal so they were supported to carry out their roles.

People said that they knew they could contact the provider at any time, and they felt confident about raising any concerns or other issues.

Management systems were in use to minimise the risks from the spread of infection, staff received training about controlling infection and had access to personal protective equipment like disposable gloves and apron’s.

Working in community settings staff often had to work on their own, but they were provided with good support and an ‘Outside Office Hours’ number to call during evenings and at weekends if they had concerns about people. The service could continue to run in the event of emergencies arising so that people’s care would continue.

The provider was putting processes in place to monitor the delivery of the service with the support of an external consultant. As well as talking to the provider at spot checks, people could phone the office at any time. People’s views were obtained through meetings with the person and meetings with families of people who used the service. The provider checked how well people felt the service was meeting their needs.

People’s personal information had been stored securely within the registered office, this protected people’s confidentiality.