St Jude's House

We found the following examples of good practice.

The provider had adapted the visitors’ protocol as government guidelines changed. Visitors were asked to complete a COVID-19 test, wear appropriate [personal protective equipment] PPE and follow hand hygiene procedures before entering the service.

The provider had plans in place to ensure people could continue to access their local community safely during the pandemic.

The service was taking part in regular COVID-19 testing for people and staff in line with current government guidance.

The service was kept clean and hygienic and there were regular checks and audits of the service to ensure high standards of hygiene were maintained.

The provider had developed a range of risk assessments and contingency plans to mitigate the risks associated with the pandemic. These were reviewed and updated in line with current guidelines.

St Jude’s House is a residential care home that accommodates up to 10 people with mental health needs.

People’s experience of using this service

The provider did not always consider how some safety measures might impact on people using the service.

The provider did not make the care plans in an easy read format where some people had difficulty understanding them.

People told us they felt safe using the service.

The provider had appropriate risk assessments in place with guidance for staff about how to mitigate risks.

The provider supported people to take their medicines safely.

The provider supported people to maintain a clean and tidy home.

The provider met people's nutritional needs and supported them to make healthy food choices.

People were supported with their physical and mental health needs and care records contained information on these.

People gave positive feedback about their support workers and told us they were kind and caring.

People's choices were respected in relation to their care and support and staff supported people to maintain their independence.

People's privacy and dignity was maintained.

People told us they were involved in the formulation and review of their care plans.

The provider had an appropriate complaints procedure and people told us they would feel comfortable making a complaint if needed.

The service worked in partnership with other professionals to achieve good outcomes for people.

We received positive feedback from professionals who worked in partnership with the service.

Rating at last inspection

At the previous comprehensive inspection the service was rated as Requires improvement. We went back in January 2019 to do a focused inspection and check that they had made the necessary improvements. During this inspection we identified issues in safety and governance and the service was rated as Requires improvement. (Report published 04 March 2019).

Why we inspected

This was a planned comprehensive inspection based on the previous inspection rating.

Follow up

We will continue to monitor information we receive about the service until we return to visit as per our re-inspection guidelines. We may inspect sooner if any concerning information is received.

For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk

We carried out this unannounced focussed inspection of ‘St Jude’s House’ on 15 January 2019. This was to check that improvements to meet these legal requirements had been made. The team inspected the service against two of the five questions we ask about services: Is the service safe and well led?

No risks, concerns or significant improvements were identified in the remaining Key Questions through our ongoing monitoring or during our inspection activity so we did not inspect them. The ratings from the previous comprehensive inspection for these Key Questions were included in calculating the overall rating in this inspection.

This service is a care home. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as single package under one contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection. The service is registered to provide accommodation for up to 10 people. At the time of this inspection there were nine people using the service.

At our last inspection we found the provider was not doing all they should to mitigate risks from a person’s behaviour. At this inspection we found the provider was now doing this, but improvements were still required with regards to updating risk assessments and promoting positive risk taking.

The provider had addressed fire risks by arranging for an appropriate fire risk assessment. However, aspects of the premises were unsafe and food hygiene and storage was not always safe. Staff lacked training in food safety.

There were suitable processes to safeguard people from abuse. However, the provider did not monitor incidents and accidents to look for trends and how they could learn when incidents had occurred.

The provider followed safer recruitment processes and people told us they thought there were enough staff to support them safely. Medicines were safely stored and managed.

The service had a registered manager. 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.

Managers did not always ensure that people could speak up. Keyworking sessions and tenants’ meetings did not take place regularly. Systems for recording information were sometimes complex and difficult to manage. The provider submitted notifications of significant events as required. The rating of the previous inspection was displayed in the service but not on the provider’s website.

We found breaches of regulations relating to food safety and display of ratings. You can see what action we told the provider to take at the back of the full version of this report. We will return to the service within 12 months of the previous comprehensive inspection report.

St Jude’s House is a care home. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as single package under one contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection.

The service provides accommodation and support to people with mental health needs. At the time of our inspection there were 9 people using the service one of whom was in hospital at the time of our inspection.

The building consisted of 10 bedrooms, a large lounge and dining area, launderette, indoor smoking area and a garden with an outdoor smoking area. The staff office was positioned next to the main communal area.

The service had a registered manager. 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.

There were measures in place to address risks to people using the service, however in one high risk situation these were not applied appropriately. Appropriate actions were taken when incidents had taken place. People were safeguarded from abuse by care workers who had a good understanding of the possible signs of abuse. Where money was held on behalf of people this was stored safely but not regularly checked to prevent loss or theft.

Staffing levels were suitable to meet people’s needs safely, but safer recruitment measures were not always followed to check that care workers were suitable for their roles. Staff received appropriate training and supervision to carry out their roles and told us they were well supported by managers.

The provider carried out regular checks of the safety of the property but there was not a suitable fire risk assessment in place. People received their medicines safely, but appropriate records were not always kept of this and sometimes errors in recording were not detected by audits. Managers had good systems of handover and communication in place. The provider was not meeting requirements to display their ratings and to inform us of significant events that had taken place.

People had choice and control over their care as the provider took appropriate steps to obtain consent to care. People’s care plans were reviewed regularly to make sure people’s care met their needs, and the service was responsive when people’s mental health had deteriorated. Information was not presented to people in line with Accessible Information Standards; we have made a recommendation about this. People were supported to maintain good health and the provider worked well with other professionals involved in people’s care. People were encouraged to eat well and to have varied diets.

People’s views were sought through keyworking and residents meetings, although these meetings did not always take place regularly. We observed positive and respectful interactions between people using the service and care workers, and people appeared comfortable approaching care workers for support.

We found breaches of regulations regarding safe care and treatment and notifying the Care Quality Commission of significant incidents. You can see what action we told the provider to take at the back of the full version of this report.

There was a registered manager in post at the time of this inspection. 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.

The previous inspection of the service took place on 24 September 2014. The service met all the regulations we checked at that time.

People told us they were happy with the care they received at the service. Staff were respectful of people’s dignity and privacy. Staff asked people for their consent before providing them with care and support. Staff supported people in line with their preferences and wishes.

People received safe care and support. Staff understood the types of abuse and neglect which could happen to people and their responsibility to report any concerns to keep them safe. People had received their medicines safely as prescribed. Staff assessed risks to people and had support plans in place to keep them as safe as possible. There were sufficient staff on duty to meet people’s needs.

Staff assessed people’s needs and had individual support recovery plans which showed the care and support they required. People received support as planned and which met their individual needs.

People contributed to the reviewing of the support they needed and received input from staff and healthcare professionals involved in their care. People’s support was in line with the legal requirements of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) and principles of the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005.

People accessed the health and care services they needed. People had sufficient food which they liked.

People, their relatives and staff found the manager approachable and open to ideas and feedback. The registered manager held meetings with people to get their views about the service. People understood the complaints procedure. The registered manager had looked at complaints and addressed them in line with the service’s procedures.

The registered manager undertook checks on the quality of the service and made improvements when necessary. Staff felt supported in their role to provide care to people. The registered manager worked in partnership with healthcare professionals to ensure people received the support they needed.

Staff attended training and had the skills and knowledge to support people with their mental health needs. Staff felt supported in their roles and received regular supervision. Staff felt confident the registered manager valued their ideas to improve the service.

At this inspection we answered the question: Is the service safe?

The home was safe. People told us that they felt safe and secure. The home was clean and adequately maintained and was in good state of repair at the time of our visit.

Below is a summary of what we found. The summary is based on our observations during the inspection, speaking with people using the service, their relatives, the staff supporting them and from looking at records.

If you want to see the evidence supporting our summary please read the full report.

Is the service safe?

People told us they felt safe living at the service. Staffing levels were adequate and staff were trained and competent in their roles. Staff were aware of how to respond to emergencies and there was support available 24 hours a day.

Assessments were undertaken to identify any risks to people that used the service and actions were taken to address the identified risk. Fire systems were checked regularly to ensure they worked properly.

There was loose carpet on the stairs which could pose a risk of trips and falls. People told us that they had found mice in their rooms. The management told us that they were aware of the problem and had reported it to the organisation's maintenance team but had not called out pest control.

Is the service effective?

People were involved in the assessment of their care needs and in developing their support plans. Their support plans were tailored to reflect their individual needs and the outcomes they wanted to achieve. Other health and social care professionals were involved where required.

Is the service caring?

People were supported by attentive staff. Staff were patient, encouraging and caring. They spoke to people with respect. We saw positive interactions taking place. People told us that staff were nice and listened to them. People commented that they liked living there and liked the staff. We saw that staff were not rushed and spent time with people and engaged them in activities.

Is the service responsive?

People completed a range of activities in and outside the service regularly. Staff understood the individual needs of the people who used the service and supported them accordingly. Care plans and risk assessments were reviewed monthly to reflect changes in people's needs.

Is the service well-led?

There were a range of quality assurance systems in place by the provider. They consulted with people who used the service, their relatives and staff using various methods such as surveys and meetings to obtain their views on service delivery.

Staff told us they were clear about their roles and responsibilities. Staff had regular supervision sessions, appraisals and team meetings to ensure they were adequately supported to do their jobs effectively.

We observed people were involved in the community and were encouraged to become more independent. We found that people's care needs were assessed and plans put in place to manage their needs, which included managing any potential risks to their safety and wellbeing.

The staff gave people a choice of healthy food to eat which was freely available in the kitchen. We saw people were supported to eat a healthy diet which was especially important if they were on a special diet due to their health needs, for example if they had diabetes.

People received their medicines in accordance with their prescribed needs. There were effective arrangements in place to manage the different types of medicines used by the people who used the service.

We saw the records of people who used the service were kept accurate and up to date. Other records relevant to the management of the services were accurate and fit for purpose.

People who use the service told us that they were generally "very happy" and that they liked the food available on site. People also told us that they had a choice of activities and that they felt able to "tell people what they wanted". Other people we spoke to said that they were kept informed and updated by the staff and they had found the staff to always be friendly when they visited or made contact with the staff group.