Jooma Care Homes Limited - 136 Langthorne Road

We found the following examples of good practice.

The service had a screening process for visitors before entering the building, including the use of a side entrance, temperature checks and provision of personal protective equipment (PPE). Visitors were also required to complete a COVID-19 lateral flow test. Lateral flow testing is a fast track test which allows the provider to receive a COVID-19 test result within 30 minutes. This helped to keep people safe and minimise the risk of spreading infection.

Staff and most people using the service took part in regular COVID-19 testing. Additionally, staff carried out lateral flow testing twice a week. Where people refused regular testing, the provider put extra measures in place, including risk assessing the impact to the person and others. Apart from a staff member, no one at the home had tested positive for COVID-19. This helped the service to reduce the risk of spreading infection and allowed them to closely monitor the situation.

The service followed guidelines and requirements of the COVID-19 vaccination programme. All people using the service and most staff had received their first vaccination.

People were supported in creative ways to maintain their well-being and manage any anxiety about the COVID-19 pandemic. We observed staff supporting people to understand social distancing and following good PPE practice. This was verified by one person who told us they wore a mask when out in the community and understood why social distancing was required. This helped to reduce and manage people’s anxiety and the risks related to the COVID-19 pandemic.

Jooma Care Homes Limited is a residential care home providing accommodation with personal care to five people aged 55 and over at the time of the inspection. At the time of our inspection there were five people using the service.

People’s experience of using this service

People and relatives told us they were safe, and staff treated them well. Risk assessments detailed how to support people to minimise risk. Staff had been recruited safely. Systems and processes were in place to support staff to understand their role and responsibilities to protect people from avoidable harm.

There was a process in place to report, monitor and learn from accidents and incidents. People were protected from the risks associated with poor infection control as there were processes in place to reduce the risk of infection and cross contamination. There were systems in place to ensure proper and safe use of medicines. However, the room temperature where medicines were stored was monitored, this was not recorded. We have made a recommendation in relation to the management of medicines

People were cared for by staff who received appropriate training to effectively carry out their role. Staff worked with professionals to support people’s care needs.

People were asked for their consent before care was provided. 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’s nutritional and hydration needs were met by the service. The service worked with other health and care professionals to meet people’s health needs.

People’s needs were assessed prior to joining the service, however, records of needs assessments carried out were not kept. We have made a recommendation in relation to carrying out needs assessments.

Care plans documented people’s preferences, likes and dislikes. People’s communication needs were documented in their care plan. Staff were caring, kind and spoke attentively to people.

People were supported by staff who knew people well. People were supported to maintain their independence and their dignity was valued and respected.

People were supported to participate in activities and follow their own interests. People and relatives knew how to raise a concern if they were unhappy about the service they received.

There were systems in place for monitoring the quality of the service. The provider knew what was expected of them in terms of Duty of Candour, they had spoken with the local authority and relatives concerning incidents at the home.

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 Good (published 16 May 2017).

Why we inspected

This was a planned inspection based on the previous rating.

You can read the report from our last comprehensive inspection, by selecting the ‘all reports’ link for Jooma Care Homes Limited – 136 Langthorne Road on our website at www.cqc.org.uk.

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.

136 Langthorne Road is a care home providing personal care and support for people with learning disabilities. The home is registered for five people. At the time of the inspection they were providing personal care and support to four people.

There was a registered manager in post. 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 experiences of people who lived at the service were positive. People told us they felt the service was safe, staff were kind and the care they received was good. We found staff had a good understanding of their responsibility with regard to safeguarding adults.

Risk assessments were in place which provided guidance on how to support people safely. There was enough staff to meet people’s needs. Medicines were managed in a safe manner. There were sufficient numbers of suitable staff employed by the service. Staff had been recruited safely with appropriate checks on their backgrounds completed.

Staff undertook training and received regular supervision to help support them to provide effective care. Staff we spoke with had a good understanding of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). MCA and DoLS is law protecting people who are unable to make decisions for themselves or whom the state has decided their liberty needs to be deprived in their own best interests. We saw people were able to choose what they ate and drank.

Person centred support plans were in place and people and their relatives were involved in planning the care and support the received.

People’s cultural and religious needs were respected when planning and delivering care. Discussions with staff members showed that they respected people’s sexual orientation so that lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people could feel accepted and welcomed in the service.

People had access to a wide variety of activities within the community. The provider had a complaint procedure in place. People knew how to make a complaint.

Staff told us the registered manager was approachable and open. The service had various quality assurance and monitoring mechanisms in place. These included surveys, audits and staff and resident meetings.

The service supported people with their finances. However financial records were not accurate for people. We have made a recommendation about financial records being checked more regularly.

People we spoke with told us they liked living at the home. One person told us "I like living here." We found there were 'pre- admission' assessments in people's files which examined their care needs and how the service could support them.

People told us they felt safe in the home. One person told us "I feel safe, yes." We found there was a safeguarding policy in place and the provider was using a pan London safeguarding adult's policy. There was documentary evidence of the service working with the local authority and social workers to ensure people were kept safe from harm.

People told us they liked staff. We found appropriate checks were undertaken before staff began work.

People we spoke with told us they could suggest improvements about the service they received. We found people had completed questionnaires about the quality of the service and the provision of care they received.