Jack Simpson House

On this page

• Overview
• Learning culture
• Safe systems, pathways and transitions
• Safeguarding
• Involving people to manage risks
• Safe environments
• Safe and effective staffing
• Infection prevention and control
• Medicines optimisation

People said they felt safe with staff; staff practice showed they knew them well. People were at ease and looked comfortable in the company of staff. People commented, “I feel safe here. The staff are trained and know what they are doing” and “I feel safe and the carers are ready to help when I need it.” Staff demonstrated an understanding of what might constitute abuse and knew how to report any concerns they might have. For example, staff knew how to report concerns within the organisation and externally such as the local authority, police, and the Care Quality Commission (CQC). Staff had received safeguarding training, to ensure they had up-to-date information about the protection of vulnerable people. We found the service was working within the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and if needed, appropriate legal authorisations were requested to deprive a person of their liberty. People’s individual risks were identified, and the necessary risk assessment reviews were carried out to keep people safe. For example, risk assessments had been carried out for mobility, falls, diabetes, eating and drinking and skin care. Where indicated, monitoring charts were in place to ensure people received safe care and support. There was evidence that learning from incidents and investigations took place and appropriate changes were implemented. The provider ensured there were sufficient numbers of staff deployed to meet the needs of the people at the service. The registered manager explained that staff skills were integral to enable people’s care and support needs to be met. They added that people received support from a consistent staff team. This ensured people were able to build trusting relationships with staff who knew their needs. Staff were well trained and competent in their jobs. There were safe and effective recruitment and selection processes in place.

This service scored 75 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

We did not look at Learning culture during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.

We did not look at Safe systems, pathways and transitions during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.

Staff had received safeguarding training, to ensure they had up-to-date information about the protection of vulnerable people. There were clear policies for staff to follow. Staff confirmed that they knew about the safeguarding adults’ policy and procedure and where to locate it if needed. We found the service was working within the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and if needed, appropriate legal authorisations were requested to deprive a person of their liberty.

People said they felt safe with staff; staff practice showed they knew them well. People were at ease and looked comfortable in the company of staff. People commented, “I feel safe here. The staff are trained and know what they are doing” and “I feel safe and the carers are ready to help when I need it.”

Staff demonstrated an understanding of what might constitute abuse and knew how to report any concerns they might have. For example, staff knew how to report concerns within the organisation and externally such as the local authority, police, and the Care Quality Commission (CQC). The registered manager demonstrated an understanding of their safeguarding role and responsibilities. They explained the importance of working closely with commissioners, the local authority and relevant health and social care professionals on an on-going basis.

There was evidence that learning from incidents and investigations took place and appropriate changes were implemented. For example, care plans and risk assessments were updated. Involvement of other health and social care professionals was requested where needed, to review people’s plans of care and treatment.

People were supported appropriately by staff to meet their needs in a way that was safe, supportive and enabled them to do the things that mattered to them. For example, mobilising around the home.

People’s individual risks were identified, and the necessary risk assessment reviews were carried out to keep people safe. For example, risk assessments had been carried out for mobility, falls, diabetes, eating and drinking and skin care. Where indicated, monitoring charts were in place to ensure people received safe care and support. For example, charts were in place to monitor people’s food and fluid intake, repositioning, weight and mattress settings.

Risk management considered people’s physical and mental health needs and showed that measures to manage risk were as least restrictive as possible. This included ensuring necessary equipment was available to increase a person’s independence and ability to take informed risks.

We did not look at Safe environments during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.

The provider ensured there were sufficient numbers of staff deployed to meet the needs of the people at the service. The registered manager explained that staff skills were integral to enable people’s care and support needs to be met. They added that people received support from a consistent staff team. This ensured people were able to build trusting relationships with staff who knew their needs. Staff were well trained and competent in their jobs. Staff received training, which enabled them to feel confident in meeting people’s needs and identify changes in people’s health. Staff received training on a range of subjects including, safeguarding vulnerable adults, the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA), moving and handling, first aid, infection control and a range of topics specific to people’s individual needs. For example, dementia, diabetes, skin care, end of life care and stroke awareness. Staff had also completed nationally recognised qualifications in health and social care, including the Care Certificate, which encouraged them to provide safe, compassionate care. Staff received ongoing supervision in order for them to feel supported in their roles and to identify any future professional development opportunities. There were safe and effective recruitment and selection processes in place.

We observed staff supporting people in a timely manner in order to meet their individual care and support needs.

People told us they were supported by a consistent staff team who knew them well. People told us they felt the staff had the skills to support them safely.

Staff told us they were well supported by the registered manager and felt confident to raise any concerns. They told us there were enough staff to meet peoples needs. Staff confirmed they received regular supervision.

We did not look at Infection prevention and control during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.

We did not look at Medicines optimisation during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.