CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at 17 Jerome Close
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found individual risk assessments, safe recruitment, enough staff and safe systems for ordering, storing and giving medicines. People could not say whether they felt safe, so inspectors also relied on observation and feedback from relatives and professionals.
- Effective?
- Good
- People's needs and choices were assessed and reviewed. Staff had relevant training, people were supported with food, drink and healthcare, and staff followed the Mental Capacity Act.
- Caring?
- Good
- Staff treated people with kindness, dignity and respect. People were supported to make choices, stay as independent as possible and have privacy during personal care.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans were person-centred and had been brought up to date since the previous inspection. People had communication support, regular activities, family contact and a complaints process.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Inspectors found visible and supportive management, regular audits, staff meetings and feedback from relatives, staff and professionals. The earlier management and record-keeping problems had been addressed.
What inspectors found, November 2019
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with improvements since the previous inspection but unfinished end-of-life planning.
Inspectors visited on 8 and 9 October 2019. They observed all three residents, spoke with staff, relatives and professionals, and checked care plans, medicines, recruitment records and management systems.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found enough trained staff, safe medicines procedures, personalised support, respectful care and good links with health professionals.
The home had improved from Requires Improvement after the previous inspection in December 2018. Care plans, risk assessments, complaints handling, fire drills and medicine processes had been improved, and the earlier breach was no longer present.
End-of-life plans had been started but were not yet complete. No one living at the home was receiving end-of-life care at the time.
Personalised records
Care plans and risk assessments had been substantially improved. They contained relevant information about each person's needs, preferences and routines.
“Care plans and risk assessments had been updated and were available to view in slim files that contained all relevant and important information.” from the report
Safe staffing and medicines
The home had enough staff on each shift, with cover arranged for sickness and leave. Inspectors found medicine records complete and medicines safely managed.
“There was a minimum of four staff on for every shift.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Staff knew people well and responded calmly to their needs. People were supported with privacy, dignity and independence.
“People's privacy, dignity and independence were respected and promoted by staff.” from the report
Communication and choice
Staff used Makaton, pictures and other signs to understand people who could not communicate verbally. People were offered choices about food, clothing, personal care and activities.
“People and staff used Makaton as the main source of communication and we observed questions being asked and yes or no answers being indicated.” from the report
Activities and relationships
People took part in activities at home and in the community. They had regular family contact and individual activity planners.
“People had their own weekly activity planner that involved recreational activities and domestic tasks that they were encouraged to help with.” from the report
End-of-life plans were unfinished
needs fixingEnd-of-life planning had begun, but the plans were not complete. Staff training on end-of-life care was also still planned.
“These were at an early stage and had not been fully completed at the time of the inspection.” from the report
- 01How have end-of-life plans been completed and how often are they reviewed?
- 02What physical restraint is used, in what circumstances, and how is it kept to the least restrictive approach?
- 03How do you make sure care plans and risk assessments remain accurate when people's needs change?
- 04How do staff recognise pain or distress when a person cannot communicate verbally?
- 05How will you involve relatives in future care planning and best-interest decisions?
This was a planned inspection covering all five CQC questions, including the premises and care, following the previous Requires Improvement rating. This explanation was written from the published report of 13 November 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.
What inspectors found, December 2018
Jemini Response Limited - 17 Jerome Close was rated Requires Improvement because care records and checks on how the home was run were not reliable enough.
This was a comprehensive, announced inspection on 16 October 2018. One inspector observed care, spoke with staff and managers, reviewed records, and received feedback from health and social care professionals.
The home was rated Good for Safe, Effective and Caring. Inspectors found enough suitably recruited staff, safe medicines management, appropriate training, kind care, support with health needs, and help for people to make choices and stay independent.
The home was rated Requires Improvement for Responsive and Well-led. Care plans and other records were not always current or accurate, and monitoring systems had not found all these problems. The overall rating fell from Good at the previous inspection because the provider breached Regulation 17 on good governance.
Safe staffing and medicines
There were enough staff to meet people's needs, with recruitment checks completed. Inspectors found medicines were managed safely and given as prescribed.
“There were enough staff to keep people safe and meet their needs.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Staff treated people with kindness and dignity. They understood people's individual needs, interests and ways of communicating.
“People were treated with kindness and compassion.” from the report
Choice and independence
People were supported to make choices and do as much as possible for themselves. Activities were based on individual interests and included trips out.
“Daily records demonstrated people were encouraged to do as much for themselves as possible to maintain their independence.” from the report
Health and specialist support
Staff supported people to attend health appointments and sought advice from specialist professionals. Staff received training linked to autism, epilepsy and behaviours that challenged.
“There were very good arrangements to ensure people's health needs were met.” from the report
Out-of-date care plans
seriousSome care plans and risk assessments did not reflect people's current needs. One person's needs had changed significantly, but there were no up-to-date risk management plans.
“Care plans did not give up to date and accurate guidance on how to meet people's needs.” from the report
Weak quality monitoring
seriousThe home's monitoring system did not identify the record-keeping problems found by inspectors. The provider had begun changing the system, but the improvements were not yet fully in place.
“The systems to monitor the accuracy of record keeping and the quality of the care provided were not effective and are a breach of Regulation 17” from the report
Incomplete management records
needs fixingThere was no system to ensure regular supervision for the registered manager, and most senior staff had not received regular supervision during 2018. Complaints were not always recorded using the formal procedure.
“Systems had not identified that most of the senior staff had not received regular supervision during 2018.” from the report
Some safety checks needed strengthening
needs fixingThere had been no recent fire drills to assess staff performance. Inspectors also found some medicines records and competency assessments were incomplete.
“Although staff were able to tell us what they would do in the event of a fire there were no recent fire drills to assess staff performance.” from the report
- 01Have all care plans and risk assessments been reviewed so they accurately reflect each person's current needs?
- 02How do you now check that records, care plans and health action plans remain accurate and up to date?
- 03How often do managers and senior staff receive supervision, and how is this recorded?
- 04When was the most recent fire drill, and what did it show about staff readiness?
- 05How are complaints now recorded, reviewed and followed up over time?
This was a comprehensive inspection of all five areas of quality, covering the care, accommodation, records and management of the home. This explanation was written from the published report of 4 December 2018 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 17 Jerome Close
3 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- November 2019Goodcurrent ratingup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- December 2018Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- November 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.
- April 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 13 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
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.