CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at 41 Jerome Close
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found enough staff, safe recruitment checks, clear risk assessments and safe medicines arrangements. People could not directly say whether they felt safe, but observations and feedback from relatives and professionals supported the Good rating.
- Effective?
- Good
- Staff understood people's communication, capacity and support needs. Mental capacity assessments, best interest decisions, staff training, nutrition support and links with health professionals were in place.
- Caring?
- Good
- Staff treated people with kindness, dignity and respect. People were supported to have privacy, make choices and build independence at home and in the community.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Support plans were personalised and included routines, preferences and communication methods. People had regular activities, trips out and contact with relatives, and the home had a complaints process.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The registered manager was visible, approachable and knew people well. Provider oversight had improved and was documented, although the home's auditing process was still under review.
What inspectors found, February 2020
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind, person-centred care, with some management and future-planning work still developing.
The inspection took place on 13 and 14 January 2020. One inspector spoke with or observed all four residents, staff, relatives and professionals. They also checked care plans, medicines records, staff files and management records.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found enough staff, safe recruitment, safe medicines systems and suitable risk assessments. People were supported with food, healthcare, communication, activities and developing independence.
Staff were described as kind and respectful. Care plans reflected people's routines, communication methods and preferences. The registered manager was visible and knew people well. The home had improved from Requires Improvement at the previous inspection, with Safe, Effective and Well-led moving to Good.
Safe staffing and recruitment
The home had enough staff to provide the required one-to-one support. Recruitment files contained the required checks, including employment history, references and DBS records.
“Staff had been recruited safely. Staff files now contained full DBS records and any gaps in employment history had been explored.” from the report
Safe medicines
Medicines were stored, administered and disposed of safely. Records were completed correctly, and staff had training, refresher training and competency checks.
“Medicines were ordered, stored, dispensed and disposed of safely.” from the report
Choice and independence
People were supported to make choices, communicate in their preferred ways and do as much as possible for themselves. They took part in meal preparation, personal care and community activities.
“People were supported in the home to help prepare meals and to manage as much as they could with personal care.” from the report
Personalised communication
Staff used people's preferred communication methods, including pictures, signs, symbols and individual systems. Support plans explained how each person communicated.
“We observed staff communicating with people using their preferred method.” from the report
Visible leadership
The registered manager spent time with people and was described positively by relatives, professionals and staff. Provider visits and oversight meetings were documented.
“The registered manager was a visible presence at the service and knew people well.” from the report
Auditing was still developing
needs fixingThe home's auditing process was being reviewed and developed. Some daily checks were taking place, including checks of medicines and training, but the wider process was not yet fully established.
“The registered manager told us that the auditing process for the service was under review and being developed.” from the report
Future end of life planning
minorNo one was receiving end of life care at the time of inspection. The home had started discussing future planning with relatives, but support plans and staff training were still being developed.
“Steps were being taken to include end of life considerations within support plans and introducing training for staff.” from the report
- 01How often are all quality and safety audits completed, and what happens when an audit identifies a problem?
- 02What end of life planning has now been added to each person's support plan?
- 03What end of life training have staff completed, and when will any remaining training be finished?
- 04How will you involve my relative and our family in reviews of their support plan and risk assessments?
- 05How do you make sure agency staff understand each person's communication method, routines and risks?
This was a planned inspection of the care, premises and management arrangements, covering all five CQC questions; the report also compared the results with the previous Requires Improvement inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 11 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, April 2019
Jemini Response Limited - 41 Jerome Close is Rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found kind, personalised care but weaknesses in medicines guidance, recruitment checks and management oversight.
This was an announced, comprehensive inspection over 12 and 13 March 2019. One inspector reviewed information, spoke with staff and the provider, observed care, and checked care, medicines, recruitment, training and management records. Most people could not explain their experiences, so observation was also important.
The home had enough staff and people appeared comfortable. The environment was clean and fire safety, maintenance and infection control had improved. Staff treated people with dignity, knew them well, supported their choices and helped them take part in activities and attend healthcare appointments.
Inspectors still found important gaps. Some as-needed medicines instructions were out of date or conflicting. Recruitment records did not fully show that safety information had been explored. Mental Capacity Act decisions were not always recorded clearly, specialist training needed review, and management visits and oversight were not consistently documented.
The overall rating was Requires Improvement. Safe, Effective and Well-led were rated Requires Improvement, while Caring and Responsive were rated Good. This was the second consecutive Requires Improvement rating, although the home had improved since the previous inspection and earlier breaches relating to safety and the premises had been met.
Kind, respectful support
Staff knew people’s needs, preferences and communication styles. Inspectors saw warm relationships and respectful support.
“People were supported by staff who knew them well.” from the report
Personalised communication
Picture boards, objects of reference and Makaton were used to help people understand what was happening and make choices.
“Throughout the inspection we saw staff regularly used Makaton signs to aid communication.” from the report
Clean and safer environment
The home was clean and systems for fire safety, maintenance, water testing and infection control had improved since the previous inspection.
“All areas of the house were clean. Staff had received training in food hygiene and infection control.” from the report
Medicines usually administered correctly
Although some written as-needed medicine instructions needed updating, inspectors found medicines were ordered, stored, given and recorded correctly.
“Medicines were correctly ordered, stored, administered and recorded.” from the report
Conflicting medicine instructions
seriousSome as-needed medicine protocols referred to medicines no longer prescribed or did not clearly explain which pain relief to give first. Emergency seizure medicine instructions also gave different timings.
“One stated medicine should be given after two minutes and the other after five minutes.” from the report
Recruitment records
needs fixingA criminal record entry and gaps in employment history had not been fully explored or risk assessed in the records.
“There were some minor gaps in another staff member's employment history that had not been explored.” from the report
Mental Capacity Act records
minorApplications for restrictions had been made, but written assessments explaining some decisions were not always completed.
“However, written assessments to demonstrate how these decisions had been reached were not always completed.” from the report
Management oversight
needs fixingProvider and nominated individual visits took place but were not documented. Inspectors said improvements were not yet fully embedded or sustained.
“The nominated individual visited regularly to check on the running of the service but these visits were not recorded.” from the report
- 01Have all as-needed medicine protocols been reviewed, corrected and checked against current prescriptions and seizure guidance?
- 02How do you now record and risk assess criminal record information and gaps in applicants’ employment history?
- 03What additional specialist training have staff received for autism, epilepsy and behaviours that challenge?
- 04How are Mental Capacity Act and best-interest decisions now assessed, recorded and reviewed?
- 05Are provider and nominated individual visits now documented, with clear follow-up of any concerns?
This was an announced, comprehensive inspection covering all five CQC questions and both the premises and care provided, with follow-up of concerns from the July 2018 inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 12 April 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 41 Jerome Close
4 rated inspections over 4 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- February 2020Goodcurrent ratingup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- April 2019Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- October 2018Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Inadequate
- December 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- November 2013
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.