CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Jasmine House
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People were protected from abuse and avoidable harm. Inspectors found safe medicines systems, suitable staffing, risk assessments and a clean, secure environment.
- Effective?
- Good
- People’s physical and mental health had improved, and care plans were current and regularly reviewed. Staff had substantial training and people were supported with food, healthcare, communication and independence.
- Caring?
- Outstanding
- Staff treated people with kindness, compassion, dignity and respect. People were involved in decisions about their care and supported to choose activities and how they lived.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans reflected people’s wishes and preferences, and activities could change to suit them. The home supported contact with relatives and friends and had an effective complaints process.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The home had an open, positive and person-centred culture. Managers used audits, meetings and external quality checks to monitor the service and address shortfalls.
What inspectors found, February 2020
Jasmine House was rated Good overall, with Outstanding caring and no breaches reported.
The inspection took place on 6 and 13 November 2019. One inspector reviewed care records, medicines records, staff training and recruitment records, accidents, incidents, audits and the home’s quality checks. They met everyone living in the home and staff on duty, and spoke with two relatives and a commissioning authority.
The home supported six people, with space for seven. Inspectors found safe care, good support for people’s health and choices, kind staff and personalised activities. They found that people were treated with dignity and had control over their daily lives.
The overall rating was Good. Caring was rated Outstanding. Safe, effective, responsive and well-led were rated Good. The previous overall rating was Good, published in June 2017. Caring improved from Good to Outstanding, while effective changed from Outstanding to Good.
Exceptional kindness
Inspectors saw staff treating people warmly and respectfully while keeping professional boundaries. Relatives said they felt involved and described the home as like extended family.
“We observed staff consistently treated people in a very kind and compassionate manner.” from the report
People’s control
People helped plan their care, activities, menus and daily routines. Staff supported them to make choices and develop independence.
“People had control over their lives. Staff understood they were in a supporting role.” from the report
Skilled and stable staff
Staff received regular training, supervision and support. Low staff turnover meant people were supported by staff who knew them well.
“Staff had worked in the service for many years and were extremely knowledgeable about the people living there.” from the report
Good management oversight
Managers worked alongside staff and used audits and checks to identify and address problems. The home also used external quality assurance.
“A comprehensive range of audits and checks undertaken by the management team quickly identified shortfalls and any found were immediately addressed.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How would you adapt the existing care plans and activities to meet my relative’s particular needs, preferences and goals?
- 02How would you support my relative to maintain contact with family and friends, including through technology if needed?
- 03What training and experience do the staff supporting people with similar complex physical, learning disability or mental health needs have?
- 04How would you support my relative with medicines when they are away from the home?
- 05How would you involve my relative and our family in reviews, decisions about care and complaints?
This was a planned inspection covering all five key questions, but inspectors looked at one person’s care records and aspects of care for two other people rather than every record. This explanation was written from the published report of 26 February 2020 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 2017
Rated Good; inspectors found kind, safe and highly effective care, with the Effective rating Outstanding.
Inspectors visited without notice on 3 and 4 May 2017. They spoke with people living at the home, relatives and staff. They observed care and checked care records, staff files, training records, complaints, accidents and management records.
The home was rated Good overall. Safe, Caring, Responsive and Well-led were all rated Good. Effective was rated Outstanding, as it had been at the previous inspection in January 2015.
Inspectors found safe medicines management, suitable staffing, detailed care plans and regular risk reviews. People were supported to make choices, take part in activities and stay involved with their healthcare and daily lives.
The home had a positive and open culture. It used audits, meetings, surveys and other checks to monitor care. One minor issue was found with previous ratings not being shown on the provider website, but this was fixed during the inspection.
Highly effective support
Inspectors rated the Effective area Outstanding. Staff were trained, supported and familiar with people's needs, and worked with health professionals when needed.
“All seven people who lived at the home were receiving outstanding care and support they required.” from the report
Safe medicines
Medicines were given by trained staff. Records, storage, audits, ordering, disposal and reviews were all described as being managed safely.
“Medication was administered safely by staff who had received the appropriate training.” from the report
Choice and involvement
People were involved in decisions about food, activities, holidays, bedrooms and their care. Staff also supported access to healthcare and specialist advice.
“People who lived at the home were actively involved with food and drink purchases and staff were very familiar with their likes and dislikes.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Inspectors observed warmth and kindness. Staff promoted privacy and dignity, and relatives described strong involvement in people's care.
“The SOFI tool provided positive evidence that there was compassionate and considerate care being provided.” from the report
Activities and communication
The home offered varied activities, including trips, music, drama, exercise and an annual holiday. Easy Read information, meetings and newsletters helped people and relatives stay informed.
“Activities accommodated individual choice and preference however there was also opportunity for all seven people to engage in activities together, if they wished to.” from the report
Website information
minorPrevious inspection ratings were not initially available on the provider website. The manager was told about this and the issue was corrected immediately.
“previous inspection ratings could not be found on the provider website.” from the report
- 01How are medicines checked now, and how often are staff competency assessments and medication audits completed?
- 02How will you make sure my relative's care plan and risk assessments reflect their current wishes, needs and risks?
- 03What activities are available now, and how are people supported to choose activities that suit them?
- 04How are relatives involved in care reviews, health appointments and decisions made in a person's best interests?
- 05How do people and relatives raise concerns, and how are complaints recorded and resolved?
This was an unannounced inspection of the overall quality of the home, covering all five CQC questions and reviewing care, staff and management records. This explanation was written from the published report of 8 June 2017 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 House
3 rated inspections over 5 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- February 2020Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: OutstandingResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- June 2017Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: OutstandingCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- May 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: OutstandingCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- June 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- March 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 14 December 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
91 live-in carers within about an hour of Liverpool
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. 83 can care for a couple. 10 years' experience on average.
“It was clear that she genuinely cared and her warm approach really helped put our minds at ease.”
“All in all Kama b cared for the owner really well, every aspect of her care was of the highest standard.”
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.