About the service:

Jubilee Court provides accommodation and personal care to older people. The care home accommodates up to 91 people in one purpose built building. At the time of the inspection 89 people were living there.

People’s experience of using this service:

People were happy at the service and were supported by staff who knew them well. People felt privacy and dignity was promoted. People were able to choose how to spend their time and encouraged to make decisions about their care. People’s care plan included information that gave staff information on how to support people.

People told us they enjoyed the activities available. People had the opportunity to go out. There were communal areas throughout the home which were all used regularly. The friend’s café was the hub of the home where people from every unit of the home joined for social events, activities and general get togethers.

The recruitment process and training systems meant people were supported by staff who were suitable to work in a care setting and equipped for their role. People’s view on staffing was that in most cases there was enough staff to meet their needs. Staff told us that in most cases there was enough staff, at times people may need to wait a little longer than preferred. On the day of inspection people had their needs met in a timely fashion. There were systems in place to help ensure staff were trained and received regular supervision. Staff felt supported.

People had their individual risks assessed and staff were aware of these. People were supported safely. People received their medicines when needed. People’s personal care needs were met.

The provider had systems in place to help them identify and resolve any issues in the home. The registered manager was known throughout the home and people and staff were positive about them. All staff were clear about what was expected of them and any lessons learned from events or incidents.

The service met the characteristics for a rating of "Good" in all key questions.

More information about our inspection findings is in the full report.

Rating at last inspection:

At the last inspection on the 27 September 2016 the service was rated as Good in four key questions and Requires Improvement in one key question. The rating for Responsive has improved at this inspection.

Why we inspected:

This inspection was part of our scheduled plan of visiting services to check the safety and quality of care people received.

Follow up: We will continue to monitor the service to ensure it provides safe and effective care. We will plan further inspections in the future.

This inspection was carried out on 27 September 2016 and was unannounced. At their last inspection on 24 May 2016, they were found to not be meeting all the standards we inspected. This was in relation to the management systems in the home. The registered manager sent us an action plan setting out how they would make the necessary improvements. We found at this inspection that they had made the required improvements.

Jubilee Court provides accommodation and personal care for up to 91 older people, some of whom live with dementia. They also provide an enablement and intermediate service for people who are recuperating following a stay in hospital. At this inspection 81 people were being living at the service.

The service had a manager who was registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC). A registered manager is a person who has registered with the 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 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

People received care that met their needs. Some care plans were person centred but some needed further information added to ensure all information was available. However, staff knew people well and were able to support them safely and appropriately.

People were supported by sufficient numbers of trained staff who felt supported. Staff were able to identify risks and knew how to report any concerns of abuse. Medicines were managed safely and risk assessments were reviewed regularly. The registered manager and the provider also monitored accidents and incidents.

People had their capacity assessed and where needed best interest decisions were put into place. People were asked for their consent and their choices were respected. Privacy and dignity was promoted. Confidentiality was maintained.

People had access to a variety of food and drink. They were supported where needed and health care professionals were involved on a regular basis. People had access to the community and a range of activities that suited their hobbies and interests. People knew how to make complaints and these were responded to appropriately.

There were systems in place to monitor the quality of the service. The registered manager was working with the management team and the provider to further develop these systems to drive improvement and more oversight in the home.

We carried out an unannounced comprehensive inspection of this service on 30 September 2015. Breaches of legal requirements were found. After the comprehensive inspection, the provider wrote to us to say what they would do to meet legal requirements in relation to Regulation 12 of the Health and Social Care Act (Regulated Activities) 2014 Regulations.

We undertook this focused inspection to check that they had followed their plan and to confirm that they now met legal requirements. This report only covers our findings in relation to those requirements. You can read the report from our last comprehensive inspection, by selecting the 'all reports' link for Jubilee Court on our website at www.cqc.org.uk

This inspection was carried out on 24 May 2016 and was unannounced. At their last inspection on 30 September 2015 they were found not to be meeting all the standards we inspected. We found that people did not always receive safe care and treatment. This related to addressing health care needs and the management of medicines. At this inspection, although we found that some action had been taken to address the shortfalls, some issues still remained.

Jubilee Court provides accommodation and personal care for up to 91 people. They also provide an enablement and intermediate care service which means people stay at the home for short periods of time while they recuperate from ill health.

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 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

There were shortfalls in relation to the record keeping at the service. This was in relation to the accurate recording of medicines and ensuring all information in relation to people’s health was recorded clearly and consistently. We also found that systems implemented to address the previous breach of regulation needed further work to ensure they were effective. In addition, systems already in place, such as audits, were not always identifying issues.

Systems had been implemented to help ensure the safe handling of medicines. However, this required additional time to become consistently effective.

People’s health care needs were responded to appropriately and managers were checking to ensure all actions were carried out.

This inspection was carried out on 30 September 2015 and was unannounced.

Jubilee Court provides accommodation and personal care for up to 91 older people, some of who live with dementia. The service also provides intermediate and enablement care. This is when the service works with health and social care professionals to improve a person’s health to either return home or move to an appropriate care setting. There were 85 people living at the service on the day of our inspection. There was 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 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

When we last inspected the service on 18 July 2014 we found them to be meeting the required standards. At this inspection we found that they had continued to meet the most of the standards. However, there were areas that required improvement.

CQC is required to monitor the operation of the Mental Capacity Act (MCA)2005 and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) and to report on what we find. DoLS are put in place to protect people where they do not have capacity to make decisions and where it is considered necessary to restrict their freedom in some way, usually to protect themselves or others. At the time of the inspection applications had been made to the local authority in relation to people who lived at the service. Some had been authorised and the manager had a log of when these were due to be reviewed and some were pending an outcome. Staff were fully aware of their role in relation to MCA and DoLS and how people were at risk of being deprived of their liberty.

People told us that their needs were met and care plans were mostly up to date. There were some contradictions in information recorded. Activities were provided for most people. however, people on the intermediate and enablement units felt that the were insufficient. People had access to the community.

People were supported to eat and drink sufficient amounts and there was regular access to health and social care professionals. There were enough sufficiently trained staff who had been recruited through a robust process.

There were systems in place to obtain feedback back and respond appropriately to concerns, suggestions and complaints. Staff were positive about the management of the home and there were systems in place to monitor risks and the quality of the service. However, these did not always identify and therefore address the issues we found as part of our inspection.

We considered all the evidence we had gathered under the outcomes we had inspected to answer questions we always ask; Is the service safe? Is the service effective? Is the service caring? Is the service responsive? Is the service well led?

Below is a summary of what we found. The summary is based on our observations during the inspection, speaking with people who used 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 had up to date risk assessments in place to enable them to be as independent as possible.

One person we spoke with told us, “I have never felt vulnerable; there are always enough staff for me to sit and talk to.”

Where required, Mental Capacity Assessments had been carried out, following these, either Best Interest meetings had been held or an application for Deprivation of Liberty safeguards (DoLS) had been submitted.

People’s medication was managed by trained staff and stored safely.

Is the service effective?

People’s care needs were assessed and care plans written to reflect individual needs.

Staff had received appropriate training to enable them to carry out their role effectively.

Is the service caring?

We observed that staff were responsive to people’s needs, and treated them with respect and dignity.

We observed the atmosphere to be relaxed and homely.

One person told us, “I have got a lovely bedroom, and the staff look after me.”

Is the service responsive?

Care plans were reviewed and updated on a regular basis to reflect the changing needs of people.

The service employed activity staff to provide stimulation for people. A variety of internal activities and external entertainers provided entertainment for people, who told us they enjoyed this.

Is the service well led?

The service had a registered manager in post, who was supernumerary to the staff rota. They were supported by a management team.

The quality assurance system was robust and included monthly visits from the area manager.

Staff and people who used the service were asked for their opinions and feedback was acted on.

When we inspected Jubilee Court on 09 May 2013 we saw that people could choose what they did during the day at the home. People’s independence and community involvement was promoted. For example, we saw the foyer of the home had an area called ‘Best Friends Café’ where families and friends could spend time together when they visited, especially those with children.

One person told us, “The staff are really lovely. They are always bright and happy.”

We saw that care and support was planned according to people's individual needs. One person said, “They ask me questions about what I need. They get everything I need for me.” People were protected from the risks of unsafe care because risk assessments were accurate and regularly reviewed.

One member of the care staff we spoke with told us that they felt the information in people's care plans was very important because “…it helps us to get to know [people] individually and that means we can do a better job.”

People who use the service were protected from the risk of abuse because the provider had taken reasonable steps to identify the possibility of abuse and prevent it from happening.

There were sufficient staff to meet people's needs at all times. One person said, “At night time, if I need help then I ring the bell and they always come promptly.”

We saw that people living at the home, their representatives and staff were asked for their views about their care and treatment and they were acted on.