We carried out a review of the data available to us about Jordangate House 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 Jordangate House, you can give feedback on this service.
People’s experience of using this service: People and their relatives told us they liked the kind and caring staff. Relatives told us that the staff and registered manager went over and above what they would expect from a care agency.
People were kept safe, potential risks to safety were thoroughly assessed and managed. Risk assessments were regularly reviewed and updated.
Medicines were safely managed. Staff received thorough training in medication administration and their competency was regularly assessed. Medication records were comprehensively completed and regularly audited.
Staff were recruited safely. People and their relatives told us there was always enough staff and they were well matched to the people they cared for. The majority of staff had worked there a long time. Staff told us they were very happy and enjoyed the company of the people who used the service.
Staff understood and worked in line with current legislation and best practice guidelines.
People were supported to live with privacy and dignity. Their individual needs and preferences including around equality and diversity were known, respected and promoted.
The service actively promoted people’s independence. Relatives told us that since being cared for by Honnete Support Service, they had seen their loved one’s independent living skills improve.
The service ran a community enterprise farm and shop. This provided employment and meaningful activities for the people using the service.
People, their relatives and staff all spoke very highly of the registered manager. They all told us she was fair, approachable and supportive.
The registered manager worked closely with the local community.
Rating at last inspection: At their last inspection the service was rated good. (Published September 2016)
Why we inspected: This was a planned comprehensive inspection. No information of concern had been received prior to the inspection.
The Old Chapel t/a Honnette Services provide support with personal care to adults with learning disabilities who live in four houses within the Macclesfield area. The office base is within the grounds of Macclesfield Crematorium. At the time of the inspection the service supported 14 people in four houses.
There was a registered manager in place. 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.
At the last inspection in January 2014 the service was meeting the requirements of the regulations that were inspected at that time.
We found the service had systems in place to record safeguarding concerns, accidents and incidents and take necessary action as required. Staff had received safeguarding training and understood their responsibilities to provide safe care for people.
People were kept safe and secure in the supported houses. There were appropriate numbers of staff deployed in the houses to meet people’s needs and provide a flexible service.
We looked at the recruitment procedures followed by the service for two appointed staff members. We found checks had been undertaken including a Disclosure and Barring Service check (DBS), and references. However the applicant had not provided a full employment history on their application form. They had discussed this with the applicants at interview but had failed to record a written explanation of the gaps. This meant the service didn’t have satisfactory information about the person’s previous employment. Also written references were obtained after the commencement of employment date. The provider had received telephone assurances of the employee’s character but had not recorded this.
We recommend the registered provider reviews the services recruitment procedures to ensure all checks for employment were completed before staff commenced work.
People were approached with a supportive and compassionate manner and staff had a good understanding of protecting people’s dignity and privacy. We observed staff were friendly, respectful and caring towards individuals.
We looked at how medicines were administered. The medicines administration record (MAR) sheets were legible and did not contain any gaps. We saw training records that confirmed staff administering medication had received training.
Staff knew the people they supported and provided a personalised service. Care plans were in place detailing how people wished to be supported and people were involved in making decisions about their care.
People who lived in the supported houses were encouraged to attend to their own dietary requirements as much as possible. Support and guidance was always available at mealtimes. One person who lived in one of the houses said, “I enjoy shopping for my own food and cooking it.”
Staff understood the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). This meant they were working within the law to support people who may lack capacity to make their own decisions.
People who lived in the supported houses were provided with support and guidance to meet their aims and goals. For example staff provided support for people who wished to achieve education or gain employment. One person who lived in one of the houses said, “I wanted to attend college and do some gardening. Everybody has helped me to do that.”
People who used the service knew how to raise a concern or to make a complaint. The complaints procedure was available and people said they were encouraged to raise concerns. Where people had expressed concerns appropriate action had been quickly taken.
We found a number of audits were in place to monitor quality assurance. The registered manager had systems in place to obtain the views of people who lived in the supported tenancy houses and their relatives.
We looked at the records of three people. We found the support plans were well organised and contained up to date information including, needs assessments and risk assessments. They also detailed information about the person's medical needs and medical appointments. The support plans were personalised in relation to what was important to the person and their likes and dislikes.
We looked at staff training records, staff supervision arrangements and the service's complaints procedure. We did this because we wanted to identify that appropriate arrangements were in place to support staff members. We also wanted to ensure people using the service felt listened to.
We spoke with two people being supported by the service and the relative of one person. They told us they were very happy with the service provided by the agency and felt supported by the staff. One person said, 'I live independently and I am supported to undertake everyday domestic tasks in my house. I do voluntary work and attend activities of my choice. I am very happy'.
The provider was consulting people about their service through their quality monitoring procedures. We saw completed surveys with people providing feedback about their experience of the service.
Five people we spoke to told us they felt safe and that they liked living in their houses. They also told us that staff "were great and really kind". The people told us the staff always treated them with respect and "they encourage me to do things on my own".
We reviewed support plans for four people. We found the support plans were well organised and contained up to date information including, needs assessments and risk assessments. They also detailed information about the person's medical needs and medical appointments. The support plans were personalised in relation to what was important to the person and their likes and dislikes.
We saw that policies and procedures were in place regarding the safeguarding of vulnerable adults. We saw that all staff who worked at the home had received safeguarding training. The staff spoken with during our inspection were able to demonstrate that they had a good understanding of safeguarding procedures.
Other comments from members of staff were, "I absolutely love working here," "We have a good team, everyone loves their jobs, you can see that" and "everyone works the same way, which is to enable people to do things for themselves".