CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Jasmine Court Nursing Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People told inspectors they felt safe. Safeguarding, risk management, staffing, medicines and infection control arrangements were found to be suitable.
- Effective?
- Good
- This key question was not inspected during this focused visit. Its previous rating was carried forward into the overall rating.
- Caring?
- Good
- This key question was not inspected during this focused visit. Its previous rating was carried forward into the overall rating.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This key question was not inspected during this focused visit. Its previous rating was carried forward into the overall rating.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Inspectors found effective quality monitoring, positive leadership and good involvement of people and relatives. One health professional said communication about ward rounds could improve.
What inspectors found, August 2022
Rated Good; inspectors found kind, safe care and better safeguarding, but some building work and communication improvements were still in progress.
This was an unannounced focused inspection on 27 July 2022. One inspector and an Expert by Experience spoke with people, relatives, staff and a health professional. They also observed care and checked care, medicines, recruitment and management records.
The home was rated Good overall. Safe and Well-led were both rated Good. Inspectors found people were treated with kindness and respect, felt safe, had enough staff and received medicines safely. Safeguarding systems had improved.
The home had improved since the last inspection, which was rated Requires Improvement and found breaches of regulation. The provider was no longer in breach. Some bathrooms, fire safety work and communication with a health professional were still being improved.
This was a focused inspection of Safe and Well-led. The other three ratings were carried forward from the previous inspection, so they were not checked during this visit.
Kind and respectful care
People and relatives spoke positively about the care. Inspectors observed warm, kind and caring interactions.
“People were treated with kindness, dignity and respect.” from the report
Improved safeguarding
The home had improved how it reported and monitored safeguarding concerns. Staff understood how to report different types of abuse.
“Systems were in place to monitor any allegations of abuse to ensure these were reported appropriately and to monitor any subsequent actions.” from the report
Safe staffing and medicines
Inspectors found enough staff, safe recruitment and a nurse on duty. Medicines were stored, given and checked safely.
“There was always a nurse on duty. Staff confirmed there was sufficient staff to enable them to support people.” from the report
Quality monitoring
The provider and manager had systems to monitor the service and identify improvements. The provider visited regularly to support the home.
“Systems were in place to monitor the quality of the service and these were effective in driving improvements where required.” from the report
Fire safety assessment pending
needs fixingThe home was arranging an external fire risk assessment after a visit from a fire safety officer. An action plan was in place, but the assessment had not yet been completed.
“The provider was in the process of arranging for an external company to complete a fire risk assessment.” from the report
Bathrooms unavailable during refurbishment
minorTwo bathrooms were not being used because they stored moving and handling equipment. People were using a ground-floor shower room while refurbishment was planned.
“Two of the bathrooms on the first and second floor were not being used and were being used to store moving and handling equipment.” from the report
Communication about ward rounds
minorA health professional said communication needed to improve so information was received before ward rounds. The home said it would act on this advice.
“Another health professional told us communication could improve in relation to improving the ward rounds to ensure information prior to the ward round was received.” from the report
- 01Has the external fire risk assessment now been completed, and what actions were identified?
- 02When will the first- and second-floor bathrooms be reopened after refurbishment?
- 03How will the home make sure information is sent to health professionals before ward rounds?
- 04What were the previous safeguarding and notification problems, and how does the home check that the improvements remain in place?
- 05What were the latest ratings for Effective, Caring and Responsive at the previous comprehensive inspection?
This was a focused inspection of Safe and Well-led only; the Effective, Caring and Responsive ratings were carried forward from the previous inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 20 August 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, August 2019
Rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found kind, effective care, but safeguarding reporting and management oversight were not reliable.
The inspection was unannounced on 24 July 2019. Inspectors spoke with six people, nine staff members and one healthcare professional. They reviewed care records, medicines, staffing, recruitment, complaints, incidents, training and quality checks.
People generally said they felt safe and received kind, respectful care. Inspectors found good support with people's health, nutrition, choices, dignity, personalised care and activities. Medicines were managed safely, staff were trained, and staffing rotas showed enough staff were available during the visit.
However, four safeguarding allegations had not been reported to the local authority. Four legally required notifications had also not been sent to the CQC. The home's checks had not identified these failures. The overall rating fell from Good at the previous inspection to Requires Improvement, with Safe and Well-led both rated Requires Improvement.
Kind and respectful care
People told inspectors that staff were kind, caring and respectful. Inspectors also found that staff promoted privacy, dignity and independence.
“People told us staff were kind, caring and treated them with respect.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans were individual to each person and reflected their needs and preferences. People and relatives were involved in planning care where possible.
“Care plans were person centred, individualised and relevant to the person.” from the report
Medicines managed safely
The medicines records reviewed showed that people received their medicines as prescribed. Guidance was available for medicines taken when needed.
“The Medication Administration Records (MARs) we reviewed showed that medicines were in stock and people received their medicines as prescribed.” from the report
Staff training and support
Staff received induction, ongoing training and regular one-to-one supervision. Inspectors found they had the knowledge and skills needed to support people.
“The training record we reviewed showed staff received continual training in subjects to meet the needs of the people they supported.” from the report
Safeguarding was not reported properly
seriousFour safeguarding allegations were investigated internally but were not reported to the local safeguarding authority. This meant the CQC could not be sure the outcomes were accurate or that people were fully protected.
“However, they had failed to report them to the local safeguarding authority in line with legislation and local procedures.” from the report
Missed CQC notifications
seriousThe provider did not send four statutory notifications to the CQC. These notifications help the regulator monitor important incidents and changes.
“We found four statutory notifications had not been submitted.” from the report
Quality checks did not find the problems
needs fixingThe home had audits and monitoring systems, but they did not identify the failures in safeguarding reporting. This contributed to the Requires Improvement rating for Well-led.
“The systems however, had failed to identify safeguarding concerns had not been reported to the local authority in line with legislation, local procedures or CQC.” from the report
Fire risk assessment needed updating
minorInspectors found that the fire risk assessment in the file needed to reflect people's current needs. The manager said an updated version was held elsewhere.
“We noted this needed to be reviewed and updated to reflect people's current needs.” from the report
- 01How are safeguarding allegations now reported to the local authority and the CQC, and who checks that this has happened?
- 02What action has been taken in response to the four missed statutory notifications?
- 03How have the home's audits and quality checks been changed so that reporting failures are identified promptly?
- 04Has the fire risk assessment been updated to reflect the current needs of residents?
- 05How do you check staffing levels at busy times, when some staff previously said they could be short or under pressure?
This was an unannounced inspection that assessed all five CQC questions and looked at both the premises and the care provided; no one was receiving end-of-life care at the time. This explanation was written from the published report of 22 August 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
4 rated inspections over 7 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- August 2022Goodcurrent ratingup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- August 2019Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- January 2017Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- December 2015Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- October 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- October 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- June 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- October 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- May 2011
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
23 live-in carers within about an hour of North Somerset
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 £1,050 to £1,320 a week. 19 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
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.