CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Jasmine Court Nursing Home
Rated Requires improvement: inspectors found the home was not performing as well as it should and told it what to change.
What inspectors found, August 2021
Jasmine Court Nursing Home was rated Good; inspectors found kind, well-organised care, with some medicines management improvements needed.
The inspection was unannounced and took place on 30 June 2021. Inspectors spoke with staff, relatives and a healthcare professional. They observed care in three of the six units and checked care records, medicines records, audits and infection control information.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found enough staff, good infection control, prompt care and staff who understood people's needs. Relatives generally described staff as patient, kind and approachable.
Some medicines checks and records needed improvement. Problems included an overheated medicines room, unclear handwritten prescriptions, and medicines records that were not always complete. These issues were fixed or being addressed, and the CQC made a recommendation rather than finding a breach.
The previous rating was Requires Improvement, published in May 2019, with four regulatory breaches. Inspectors found that improvements had been made and the home was no longer in breach of regulations.
Staffing and prompt care
Inspectors found the home was well-staffed and that people received prompt care. Relatives said staff were experienced, skilled and worked well as a team.
“The service was well-staffed, and people received prompt, quality care.” from the report
Kind and respectful staff
Staff were patient and compassionate. They offered reassurance, respected people's choices and supported privacy, dignity and independence.
“We saw many examples of staff supporting people with patience, compassion and understanding.” from the report
Infection control
The premises were clean and hygienic. Inspectors found robust arrangements for preventing and managing infections, including COVID-19.
“Robust systems were in place to ensure the premises were clean and hygienic and people, visitors and staff protected from infection, including COVID-19.” from the report
Personalised care
Care plans had improved and gave staff detailed information about people's backgrounds, preferences and interests. Activities were offered both individually and in groups.
“At this inspection care plans had improved and staff had comprehensive information about people's personal histories, individual preferences, interests and aspirations.” from the report
Improvement since the last inspection
The home improved from Requires Improvement to Good in every key question. Inspectors found it was no longer in breach of the regulations identified previously.
“At this inspection we found improvements had been made and the provider was no longer in breach of regulations.” from the report
Medicines records and checks
needs fixingInspectors found several medicines management problems, including incomplete records and a medicine given two days late. The issues were fixed or being addressed, but the CQC recommended a review of medicines checks and audits.
“Some improvements were needed to medicines management. These were put right on the day of our inspection visit or shortly afterwards.” from the report
Care records were split across systems
minorStaff needed to read both paper and electronic records to understand a person's care. Inspectors said this was time-consuming and could make it unclear when reviews had happened.
“Care records were in paper and electronic form and, to get a full picture of a person's care, they had to be read in conjunction with each other.” from the report
Some training was overdue
minorA small number of staff had overdue training, and one nurse had an overdue medicines competency check. The check was arranged during the inspection.
“The service's training matrix showed that a small number of staff had courses that were overdue and needed completing.” from the report
- 01What changes have you made to medicines checks and audits since this inspection?
- 02How do you now record and check covert medicines and transdermal patches?
- 03How do you make sure medicines are given at the right time and that any missed or late doses are followed up?
- 04Have all overdue staff training courses and medicines competency checks been completed?
- 05How do you make sure paper and electronic care records agree and show clearly when reviews took place?
This was a planned inspection based on the previous rating, covering all five key questions and infection prevention and control; inspectors observed care in three of the home's six units. This explanation was written from the published report of 11 August 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.
What inspectors found, June 2019
Rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found unsafe staffing levels, missed care checks, medicines problems and inconsistent dignity.
This was an unannounced planned inspection on 14 May 2019. Inspectors spoke with people living there, visitors, managers and staff. They observed care and checked care records, medicines, training, recruitment and quality checks.
All five areas were rated Requires Improvement: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Staff numbers were not enough at important times, particularly on the top floor. This meant people were not always supported safely or promptly.
Inspectors also found that some risk assessments and care plans were not followed. Medicines were not always given on time, unexplained bruising was not always recorded or reported, and quality checks had not found these problems. People and relatives described staff as kind, but inspectors saw some care that was not dignified or sufficiently person-centred.
The home was rated Good at the previous inspection in December 2016, although Safe was already Requires Improvement. At this inspection, the overall rating had fallen to Requires Improvement. Four legal regulations were breached, and the provider was required to say what action it would take.
Access to healthcare
Staff recognised changes in people's health and made appropriate referrals. People had regular access to GPs, dieticians and speech and language therapists.
“People had regular access to GP's, dieticians and the speech and language therapy team” from the report
Staff training and recruitment
The home carried out appropriate recruitment checks and provided induction and role-related training. Nurses were supported with professional registration requirements.
“Appropriate checks had been carried out on new members of staff to make sure they were suitable to work at the service” from the report
Infection control
Protective equipment was available and used appropriately. The home also had the highest local food hygiene rating.
“We saw personal protective equipment (PPE) such as gloves and aprons were readily available, and these were appropriately used throughout our visit.” from the report
Complaints and visitors
There was a formal complaints process, and people knew who to speak to if they were unhappy. Relatives and friends were encouraged to visit.
“When a complaint had been received, this had been handled in line with the providers complaints policy and investigated and responded to appropriately.” from the report
End-of-life support
People's end-of-life preferences were explored and staff had received relevant training. Records included instructions for people who did not want resuscitation.
“The staff team had received training on end of life care and a policy was in place.” from the report
Not enough staff
seriousStaffing was not sufficient to meet people's needs safely or on time. Inspectors saw an unsafe lunchtime on the top floor and periods when lounges had no staff present.
“Appropriate numbers of staff had not been suitably deployed to meet people's needs in a safe or timely manner.” from the report
Risk checks not followed
seriousRequired checks were missed, including checks for a person needing regular monitoring. Staff did not always use equipment or follow guidance intended to reduce risks.
“People were placed at risk because risk assessments were not followed.” from the report
Medicines management
seriousMedicines rounds took several hours, so some medicines were given at adjusted times. Medicines awaiting return, expired vaccines and incorrect disposal also created risks.
“People were not always provided with their medicines in a timely manner.” from the report
Bruising not reported
seriousThree examples of unexplained bruising were not properly recorded, analysed or investigated. This meant possible abuse was not dealt with through the required process.
“There was a failure to record or report potential abuse.” from the report
Dignity and personal preferences
needs fixingInspectors saw one person trying to eat soup while lying in bed with the bowl on their chest. A recorded preference for female carers was not always followed.
“This was neither dignified nor respectful.” from the report
Care plans and activities
needs fixingSome care plans lacked personal detail and were not followed. Some people, particularly on the top floor and those in their rooms, appeared frustrated by limited interaction and stimulation.
“Not all the plans of care seen were comprehensive or included personalised information in them.” from the report
- 01What changes have been made to staffing levels, particularly on the top floor and during meals?
- 02How do you now check that risk assessments, 30-minute observations and care-plan instructions are followed every time?
- 03How are medicines given on time, returned safely, and checked for expiry and correct disposal?
- 04How do you record, investigate and report unexplained bruising or other possible safeguarding concerns?
- 05How do you make sure people's dignity, carer preferences, exercises and daily activities are respected and delivered?
This was an unannounced planned inspection of the care provided and the premises, covering all five CQC questions and reviewing records, medicines, staffing, training and management systems. This explanation was written from the published report of 19 June 2019 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 Jasmine Court Nursing Home
5 rated inspections over 7 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- August 2021Goodcurrent ratingup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- June 2019Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- December 2016Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- April 2016Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvement
- January 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- July 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- March 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- September 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- July 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- October 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- April 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- October 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 15 November 2010.
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
At least 100 live-in carers within about an hour of Leicestershire
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. 82 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“If you bump into her in the night on her way to the bathroom she will still inquire how you are and if everything is alright.”
“Together Earther and I supported her to die at home with great dignity and compassion and him to continue with life.”
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.