Archived: Jack Sears House Residential Home

Updated 11 November 2016

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection was planned to check whether the provider is meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Health and Social Care Act 2008, to look at the overall quality of the service, and to provide a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014.

The inspection took place on 20 and 21 September 2016 and was unannounced. The inspection was carried out by one inspector.

Prior to the inspection we reviewed the records held on the service. This included notifications completed about the service. Notifications are specific events registered people have to tell us about by law.

During the inspection we spoke with five people. We reviewed three people’s records in detail. We also spoke with four members of staff and reviewed three personnel records and the training records for all staff. Other records we reviewed included the records held within the service to show how the registered manager reviewed the quality of the service. This included a range of audits, questionnaires, minutes of meetings and policies and procedures.

Updated 11 November 2016

The inspection took place on 20 and 21 September 2016 and was unannounced. Jack Sears House is a residential care home and provides accommodation for people who require a care home service without nursing, for up to 24 people. On the day of the inspection 15 people lived in the home. Jack Sears House is owned by Guinness Care and Support Ltd.

A registered manager was employed to manage the service. 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.

People’s medicines were administered in people’s preferred way and on time. However, there was no guidance for staff about when to administer people’s medicines that were prescribed to be taken, ‘as required’ The registered manager told us they would ensure this information was recorded. When staff administered medicines, they left the keys for people’s medicine’s cabinets along with information about their medicines, in the corridor. This meant they were not held safely. The registered manager told us they would ensure, in the future, that staff kept confidential records, and keys to people’s medicines cabinets, with them at all times so no-one else could have access to them.

People told us they felt safe using the service. There were risk assessments in place to help reduce any risks related to people’s care and support needs. Staff had received training in how to recognise and report abuse and were confident any allegations would be taken seriously and investigated to help ensure people were protected.

There were sufficient numbers of suitably qualified staff to meet the needs of people who used the service. Due to recent difficulties recruiting sufficient numbers of staff, the registered manager and provider had decided not to accept new people to the home, to ensure the continued safety of the people already living there. The recruitment process of new staff was robust.

People received support from staff who knew them well and had the knowledge and skills to meet their needs. People and their relatives spoke highly of the staff and the support provided. Comments included, “The staff are very professional” and “The staff are lovely and caring. They’d do anything for you. You know they’ll look after you.”

The registered manager and staff had attended training on the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). Deprivation of Liberty (DoLS) applications had been made appropriately. The registered manager told us they would ensure that, where necessary, people had mental capacity assessments in place and related guidance for staff was added to people’s care plans.

There was a management structure in the service which provided clear lines of responsibility and accountability. A registered manager was in post who had overall responsibility for the service. They were supported by other senior staff who had designated responsibilities.

Feedback received by the service and outcomes from audits were used to aid learning and drive improvement across the service. The manager and staff monitored the quality of the service by regularly undertaking a range of audits and speaking with people to ensure they were happy with the service they received. People and their relatives told us the management team were approachable and included them in discussions about their care and the running of the service.