We carried out a review of the data available to us about The Jennifer Home on 6 July 2023. We have not found evidence that we need to carry out an inspection or reassess our rating at this stage.
This could change at any time if we receive new information. We will continue to monitor data about this service.
If you have concerns about The Jennifer Home, you can give feedback on this service.
We found the following examples of good practice.
Safe arrangements were in place for visitors to the service. Staff ensured visitors had taken a lateral flow test and tested negative for COVID-19. Visitors were provided with suitable personal protective equipment (PPE) to wear such as a face mask. Hand sanitizer was available throughout the home. Visiting professionals were asked to provide evidence of their COVID-19 vaccination status prior to entering the home. All staff coming on shift were required to take a lateral flow test and provide the management team with the result before starting work. Only staff that had a negative test result were permitted to work.
The service was adequately staffed. The provider ensured they were able to cover for staff absences due to COVID-19, and continue to meet people’s needs. Isolation procedures were in place to control the spread of infection. People self-isolated in their rooms when necessary.
A regular programme of testing for COVID-19 was in place for people and staff. Policies, procedures and risk assessments related to COVID-19 were up to date which supported staff to keep people safe. The provider kept up to date with government and local guidance on vaccinations, self-isolation, visiting and outbreaks to ensure they were following it correctly.
All staff had completed relevant training in infection control and PPE. We saw staff using PPE correctly and safely. Handwashing guidance was displayed throughout the home and additional PPE was available for staff and visitors. The premises was kept clean at all times to maintain hygiene and help prevent the spread of infections.
People’s experience of using this service People were protected from the risks of harm or abuse. Staff were knowledgeable about safeguarding and whistleblowing procedures. People had risk assessments carried out to protect them from avoidable harm or abuse. People were protected the risks associated with the spread of infection.
We have made a recommendation about the safe management of medicines.
Staff were supported in their role with training, supervision and appraisals. People’s care needs were assessed before they began to use the service. Staff supported people with their nutritional and healthcare needs.
People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.
People and relatives thought staff were caring. Staff knew people and their care needs and understood how to provide an equitable service. People and their relatives were involved in decisions about the care. Staff promoted people’s privacy, dignity and independence.
Staff understood how to provide a personalised care service. Care plans were detailed, personalised and contained people’s preferences. The provider understood how to meet people’s communication needs and to support people with their chosen activities. The provider had a system to deal with complaints.
People and relatives spoke positively about the leadership in the service. The provider had systems in place to identify areas for improvement. These systems included capturing feedback from people and relatives, carrying out quality checks, holding meetings with people who used the service and meetings with staff. The provider worked in partnership with other agencies to provide good outcomes for people.
For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk
Rating at last inspection The last rating for this service was requires improvement (published 19/07/2018) and there were four breaches of regulation. The provider completed an action plan after the last inspection to show what they would do and by when to improve. At this inspection we found improvements had been made and provider was no longer in breach of regulations.
Why we inspected This was a planned inspection based on the previous rating.
Follow up We will continue to monitor information we receive about the service until we return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If we receive any concerning information we may inspect sooner.
The Jennifer Home accommodates up to six adults with a learning disability, autistic spectrum disorder and mental health needs. The service is set in an adapted terraced house spread over three floors. The basement floor comprises communal areas including an open plan kitchen and dining room and a living room. At the time of our inspection, four people were living at the service.
The Jennifer Home is a 'care home'. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as a single package under one contractual agreement. The Care Quality Commission (CQC) regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection.
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 (CQC) 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.
The provider did not have robust systems to ensure people were protected against harm. Risks associated to people’s health and care needs were not always appropriately identified and mitigated. Staff’s criminal record checks were not renewed as per the provider’s policy. Staff did not always maintain accurate incident records. People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible. However, the systems in the service did not always support this practice. Staff were not sufficiently trained to meet people’s individual needs effectively. The provider did not always provide supervision and annual appraisals in line with their policy. Staff did not maintain accurate daily care logs for weekends.
People told us they felt safe with staff. Staff knew how to safeguard people against abuse. The provider stored medicines safely and securely. Staff were aware of people’s needs and how to provide safe care. Staff followed appropriate infection control procedures to avoid cross contamination. Health and safety records were in date.
People’s nutrition and hydration needs were met and told us they liked the food. Staff supported people to maintain good health and ensured they had access to ongoing healthcare services.
People and relatives told us staff were caring and trustworthy. Staff shared positive relationships with people and the provider maintained continuity of care. People told us they felt respected and staff treated them with dignity. Staff supported people to remain independent by encouraging them to engage in daily living activities. People’s cultural and religious need were met and recorded in their care plans.
Most people’s care plans were comprehensive and recorded their likes, dislikes and background history. People were supported to remain active and participate in activities for their interests. The management encouraged people and their relatives to raise concerns and make complaints. The provider had complaints policy and procedures to address people’s complaints in a timely manner.
The management met with people and relatives to seek their feedback. The provider worked with the local authorities and healthcare professionals to improve people’s lives and delivery of care.
We found four breaches of the regulations in relation to consent to care, safe care and treatment, staffing and good governance.
You can see what action we told the provider to take at the back of the full version of the report.
The service is registered to provide accommodation for up to six people who require nursing or personal care. The service is for people who have learning disabilities and autistic spectrum disorders and/or mental health. At the time of inspection there were five people living at the service.
There was a registered manager at the service. 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.
We found that although medicine was administered appropriately medicines were not stored in a safe manner. People using the service told us they felt safe at The Jennifer Home and that they were “well looked after.” We found the provider had systems in place to manage safeguarding matters which helped to ensure people's safety. Care plans addressed the safety risks identified for individuals. The staff team could demonstrate they were knowledgeable about the people living in the service and knew what steps to take to keep people safe.
The CQC is required by law to monitor the operation of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). We found the management had an understanding of MCA legislation and DoLS but staff and the management team had not received formal training.
People said staff were kind and respectful. We observed staff approached people in a friendly manner and gave people time to express themselves. We saw staff respected people’s privacy by knocking at bedroom doors and they did not enter without permission. Staff kept people’s information in a confidential manner.
Each person had a person-centred plan reviewed on a regular basis. Care planning responded to the diverse needs of the people using the service. The service encouraged people to undertake individual and group activities they enjoyed. People were encouraged to raise concerns and complain if they were not happy with the service they received.
There was evidence of good leadership this included regular auditing of processes such as care records and medicines to ensure the service adhered to the correct procedures. Staff received regular supervision and team meetings.
We found a breach of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014 Regulation 12 Safe care and treatment.
You can see what action we told the provider to take at the back of the full version of the report.
We took the opportunity to speak to four of the five people who used the service who told us they were really happy living in the home. One person said the manager was like 'their second mum'. Another person said the food was 'brilliant'. Two people told us about some of the social events they had enjoyed attending over the summer, such as a day trip to Southend. Two people went out to attend the local college during our inspection visit. We observed that the people who used the service were very fond of each other and of the staff. We saw that the manager and staff members were very proud of the achievements of people who used the service and their successes, such as giving up smoking or going to college, were warmly praised. When we spoke to a member of local authority staff who had recently visited the home they said they had observed 'good care'.
The home was clean and tidy and a garden make-over had been completed. This included improved access for less mobile people. Two people told us how much they had enjoyed sitting out in the garden over the summer.
We found evidence of good care being delivered in a homely, supportive environment and careful, consistent administration of medication. Staff had a thorough knowledge of people's needs.
However, staff training and record keeping, particularly in relation to the Mental Capacity Act 2005, were given a low priority. This meant that people could not be sure that staff knew what their rights were or would be able to identify what action they needed to take if someone could no longer make their own decisions.
All the five people we talked to said they were happy living at the home. One person told as that they have lived in the home for seventeen years and that they have always been happy. People using the service appeared relaxed, clean and well dressed.
All the people we talked to told us they had lived in the home for many years and they were well settled in the home. They said they felt the manager and staff provided them with care that met their needs.
We noted people were relaxed and confident when interacting with the staff. People told us that the staff were "pleasant, showed consideration and fairness".
People told us that they could talk to the staff and the manager if they had a concern. They told us that they believed the staff and the manager were approachable. People told us they knew how to make a complaint if they were not happy about anything. A person told us that they did not have any complaints; and they had received "information about how to make a complaint" in a welcome pack.