CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Jemini Place
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found that risks, safeguarding, medicines, recruitment and the environment were managed safely. They noted that some staff had worn fabric masks, but this was corrected immediately and the infection control policy was updated.
- Effective?
- Good
- Staff were trained and supported, and care was based on the person's needs. Inspectors noted that the evening meal menu did not offer a choice, and the manager agreed to review this.
- Caring?
- Good
- Staff knew the person well, communicated in a way they could understand, respected privacy and supported independence. The person's choices and consent were sought.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care was personalised and included communication tools, activities, family contact and visits to see peers. Some parts of the care plan had not yet been updated after the move from the previous home.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The home had clear management arrangements, regular staff meetings and systems for health, safety, infection control and medicines. Satisfaction surveys had not yet been completed, although they were planned for September 2021.
What inspectors found, September 2021
Jemini Place is rated Good; inspectors found personalised, kind care, with staffing consistency and some records needing attention.
This was the first inspection since the home became operational again in January 2021. One inspector visited on 12 August 2021, spoke with the person living there and staff, observed care, and checked care, medicine, staffing and management records.
The home was rated Good overall and Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found the person was protected from abuse, supported by staff who knew them, and involved in choices about daily life.
The home had been adapted around the person's needs. Having their own kitchen and bathroom, quieter surroundings and planned activities had improved their wellbeing and independence.
There were some areas to improve. Staffing numbers were high and staff worked across two settings. Some records and care plans needed updating, and fabric masks were corrected after inspectors raised this.
Kind and respectful care
Staff checked consent, respected privacy and understood how the person communicated. Inspectors saw staff supporting the person calmly and appropriately.
“The staff appeared to be very caring and certainly knew how to reduce any stress the person was experiencing.” from the report
Improved independence
The person had their own kitchen and bathroom and was supported to help with meals, laundry and cleaning. Inspectors found this had made a significant positive difference.
“Independence has soared since moving to Jemini Place.” from the report
Good staff support and training
Staff received induction, supervision, training and support from managers. Recruitment checks were completed before staff started work.
“They attended a reflective supervision, and this was followed by two weekly supervisions whilst induction was completed.” from the report
Many staff involved
needs fixingA large number of staff worked at the home or covered shifts from another setting. Inspectors said this was not ideal because the person needed staff who knew them well, although recruitment was continuing and agency staff were not used.
“The registered manager recognised that the high numbers of staff used was not ideal for one person.” from the report
Medicine records being changed
needs fixingHandwritten medicine administration records were being used and typed records had been requested from the pharmacy. Some medicines needed for use when required were not present during the inspection, although updated guidance was later provided.
“The registered manager had identified a problem with the medication administration records (MAR).” from the report
Some care plans not updated
needs fixingSome parts of the care plan still reflected the person's previous home. Staff knew the person well, but the records needed to catch up with the move.
“Some aspects of the care plan had not been updated since the person moved from their previous home.” from the report
Infection control correction
minorSome staff were wearing fabric masks, which did not follow government guidance at the time. The issue was corrected immediately and the policy was updated.
“Some staff wore fabric masks which was not in line with government guidance.” from the report
- 01How many staff will normally support my relative, and how will you keep the team consistent if staff work across more than one setting?
- 02Have the medicine administration records been changed from handwritten records to the typed records requested from the pharmacy?
- 03Have all parts of the care plan been updated to reflect life and support at this home?
- 04How will you make sure every staff member understands the guidance for restrictive interventions, including the manoeuvre that some staff could not explain?
- 05Have the planned satisfaction surveys with the person, family, staff and professionals now been completed?
This was the home's first comprehensive inspection after it became operational again; all five key questions were assessed, including infection prevention and control under Safe, and one person was living there. This explanation was written from the published report of 9 September 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 Jemini Place
Each visit the CQC has published, newest first, back to the day the home was registered.
- September 2021Goodcurrent ratingSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- May 2018
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 10 May 2018.
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
19 live-in carers within about an hour of East Sussex
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 £1,000 to £1,400 a week. 13 can care for a couple. 10 years' experience on average.
“When he point blank refused to go into hospital for a life saving blood transfusion she talked him through the situation and agreed to go in the ambulance with him and stayed until he was settled.”
“Una felt safe, secure and loved in her time with Debbie which is a gift that I am eternally grateful for.”
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.