CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Jah-Jireh Charity Homes Leyland
Rated Requires improvement: inspectors found the home was not performing as well as it should and told it what to change.
- Safe?
- Requires improvement
- Inspectors found that risks were generally identified and medicines, safeguarding, staffing and infection control had improved. However, risk assessments did not always give new staff enough clear guidance, and some cleaning records were incomplete.
- Effective?
- Good
- Staff had received training, people were supported with nutrition and healthcare, and staff worked within consent and best-interest requirements. People had choices about food and support.
- Caring?
- Good
- People were treated with kindness, dignity and respect. Staff supported independence and involved people in decisions about their care and daily lives.
- Responsive?
- Requires improvement
- Care was generally tailored to people's preferences, activities and faith. However, care records did not always show people's needs, choices, communication needs or end-of-life wishes clearly enough.
- Well-led?
- Requires improvement
- Leadership and quality systems had improved, and the home was more open about incidents and learning. Some gaps remained in cleaning, maintenance and daily care records, and there was no registered manager in post.
What inspectors found, May 2022
Jah-Jireh Charity Homes Leyland is rated Requires Improvement and is no longer in special measures; inspectors found major progress after an earlier Inadequate rating, but records and management systems still needed strengthening.
Inspectors visited on 26 and 28 April 2022. The first visit was unannounced and the second was announced. They spoke with people, staff, relatives and a healthcare professional. They observed care and checked care plans, medicines, staff records, rotas, training and quality checks.
The home had made significant improvements since the previous inspection. Medicines, safeguarding, staff training, recruitment, infection control, fire safety and nutrition systems had improved. People said they felt safe, received kind care and had choices about their daily lives.
The overall rating was Requires Improvement. Safe, Responsive and Well-led were rated Requires Improvement. Effective and Caring were rated Good. The home was no longer rated Inadequate or in special measures, but inspectors said more time was needed to show that the improvements were firmly established.
Clear improvement since the last inspection
The home had addressed the previous breaches and was no longer rated Inadequate or placed in special measures.
“At this inspection we found improvements had been made and the provider was no longer in breach of regulations.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
People and relatives were positive about staff's caring attitude. Staff promoted dignity, independence and personal choice.
“People were treated in a person-centred and dignified way and in a way which helped promote their independence.” from the report
Improved medicines management
Medicines records were completed appropriately, including protocols for medicines given when needed. Stock recording and dating opened medicines had also improved.
“At this inspection we found MARs were completed appropriately and people had PRN protocols, meaning we were assured that people were receiving their medicines as prescribed.” from the report
Risk assessments needed more detail
needs fixingRisks had been identified, but care plans did not always give clear and complete instructions for new staff to follow.
“Although information about risks and guidance on how to manage risks in care plans was not comprehensive enough for new staff to follow.” from the report
Care records were not always person-centred
needs fixingSome care plans were standardised and did not fully show people's individual needs, choices, backgrounds or important changes in their circumstances.
“People's care records did not always demonstrate their involvement, needs and choices.” from the report
Some daily records were incomplete
needs fixingRecords did not always show nutrition and hydration intake for people at risk of dehydration or weight loss. Other gaps remained in cleaning, maintenance and daily care records.
“Where people had been assessed as at risk of dehydration or weight loss, daily care records did not always evidence nutritional and hydration intake had been recorded.” from the report
- 01How will you make sure every person's risk assessment gives staff clear instructions to follow?
- 02How do you record and check each person's end-of-life wishes, including religious beliefs and decisions about blood transfusions?
- 03How will you make sure care plans show each person's choices, background and changing needs?
- 04What checks are now in place to ensure daily care, nutrition, hydration, cleaning and maintenance records are complete?
- 05When do you expect to appoint a permanent registered manager, and how will progress be monitored while the manager is being recruited?
This was a follow-up inspection covering all five key questions, including infection prevention and control, to check action taken after the previous Inadequate inspection and Warning Notices. This explanation was written from the published report of 19 May 2022 by an AI system and checked against the report text: every quoted line appears in the report. It is a guide to the report, not a substitute for it. Read the full report on cqc.org.uk.
What inspectors found, July 2021
Rated Inadequate and placed in special measures; inspectors found serious problems with safety, medicines, safeguarding and management.
This was an unannounced focused inspection on 3 June 2021. Two inspectors visited the home, spoke with people and staff, observed care, checked the building and reviewed care, medicines, staff and management records.
Inspectors found that risks were not consistently assessed or managed. Care records were incomplete, medicines records were not reliable, some safeguarding concerns had not been reported, and infection control and fire safety needed urgent improvement. Staff training and the systems used to check the quality of care were also not good enough.
The overall rating fell from Good at the previous inspection in July 2019 to Inadequate. Safe and well-led were rated Inadequate, while effective was rated Requires Improvement. Caring and responsive were not inspected during this visit, so their earlier ratings were used in the overall result.
Open to feedback
Inspectors said the management team accepted the feedback and wanted to improve. Immediate action began after the inspection.
“We found the management team receptive to feedback and keen to improve the service.” from the report
Links with health professionals
The home worked with health and social care professionals, including doctors, to support some people's health needs.
“We saw evidence of people being supported to take part in meetings with professionals including their doctors.” from the report
Care risks not recorded
seriousAll seven care files reviewed had missing or inconsistent information. Inspectors found unclear plans for pressure damage, moving and handling, specialist diets and weight loss.
“We reviewed seven care files and found inconsistencies or missing information in all of them.” from the report
Medicines
seriousMedicines records were incomplete. Some medicines could not be found, quantities were not always recorded, and people did not always receive medicines as prescribed.
“Medicines Administration Records (MARs) were not always completed fully.” from the report
Safeguarding failures
seriousSome incidents, including falls, unexplained injuries and pressure damage, had not been reported to safeguarding authorities. Some staff also lacked safeguarding training.
“There was a failure to report safeguarding concerns to authorities and protect people from abuse and inappropriate treatment.” from the report
Infection control and building
seriousSeveral areas and some equipment were unclean. Staff did not always use protective equipment correctly or follow social distancing guidance, and some fire doors did not close properly.
“During the inspection, we found the environment was unclean in several areas.” from the report
Staff training
seriousThe home could not show that all staff had completed induction or key training. Gaps included infection control, dementia care and pressure area care.
“Staff had not been provided with training in key areas in line with people's needs.” from the report
Weak management checks
seriousAudits and quality checks were not systematic or reliable. Records were incomplete or out of date, and the home could not show that it had learned from serious incidents.
“Systems to assess, monitor and improve the service had not been implemented and operated effectively.” from the report
- 01What has been done to make sure every person's care plan and risk assessment is complete and kept up to date?
- 02How are medicines now checked, recorded, stored, disposed of and audited?
- 03How are safeguarding concerns, unexplained injuries and repeated falls reported and investigated?
- 04Which staff have completed training in infection control, dementia care, pressure area care and the Mental Capacity Act?
- 05What evidence can you show that the warning notices and the special measures concerns have been addressed?
This was a focused inspection of Safe, Effective and Well-led only; Caring and Responsive were not inspected and their previous ratings were carried forward. This explanation was written from the published report of 29 July 2021 by an AI system and checked against the report text: every quoted line appears in the report. It is a guide to the report, not a substitute for it. Read the full report on cqc.org.uk.
Every inspection of Jah-Jireh Charity Homes Leyland
4 rated inspections over 5 years: the service has slipped, from Good to Requires improvement.
- May 2022Requires improvementcurrent ratingup from InadequateSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
Read what inspectors found at Jah-Jireh Charity Homes Leyland →
- July 2021Inadequatedown from GoodSafe: InadequateEffective: Requires improvementWell-led: Inadequate
Read what inspectors found at Jah-Jireh Charity Homes Leyland →
- July 2019Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- December 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- March 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- March 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 11 January 2011.
Ratings and report dates from the Care Quality Commission, Open Government Licence v3.0. A home can also be visited without a new rating being published, so the timeline shows published inspections.
Weigh the report against the rest
Fees, photos and reviews from families
How to read CQC ratings and reports
What to check when you visit
85 live-in carers within about an hour of Lancashire
These are self-employed carers on PrimeCarers, the introductory agency that runs this directory. Each has a profile with their own rates and reviews from families, and you choose who to talk to.
Most charge £980 to £1,260 a week. 78 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
“She understands the needs of an elderly person in the early stages of dementia and has treated my mother with great kindness and skill.”
“Thanks to Tracy, Dad was always immaculately dressed and clean, his meals were all home cooked and nutritionally well balanced and his home was always kept really clean and tidy.”
Every carer has had an enhanced DBS check in the last 18 months, ID and right-to-work checks and an online interview. Their skills and training are for you to check with them. Carers set their own rates, and who is free changes week to week.