CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Jubilee Court
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People were protected from abuse and avoidable harm. Staff were recruited safely, there were enough staff, medicines were managed safely and infection control arrangements were in place, although some risk assessments were initially missing.
- Effective?
- Good
- This question was not inspected during this focused inspection. The report does not give a new rating for Effective.
- Caring?
- Good
- This question was not inspected during this focused inspection. The report does not give a new rating for Caring.
- Responsive?
- Requires improvement
- People's care plans were personalised and communication needs were recorded. However, there were not enough activities and people told inspectors they were often bored.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The home had a positive culture and the manager was visible and approachable. Audits, feedback systems and action plans were in place.
What inspectors found, December 2022
Jubilee Court is Rated Good; inspectors found safe, well-led care but activities were not enough and the Responsive rating Requires Improvement.
This was an unannounced focused inspection on 11 and 15 November 2022. Inspectors looked at Safe, Responsive and Well-led. They spoke with people, staff, relatives and professionals, observed care, and checked care plans, medicines records, staff files, complaints and audits.
The home was rated Good overall. Safe and Well-led were rated Good. People were protected from harm, medicines were managed safely, staffing levels were sufficient and the home was clean. The manager was described as approachable, and people and relatives were involved in care planning and could raise complaints.
Responsive was rated Requires Improvement because there were not enough meaningful activities. People told inspectors they were often bored, and staff did not always have enough time to spend with people. Some risk assessments were missing on the first inspection day, but these were completed and staff guidance was updated before inspectors returned.
People felt safe
People and relatives said they felt safe. Staff knew how to raise safeguarding concerns, and the home had safeguarding and whistleblowing policies.
“People were safe and were protected from harm.” from the report
Safe medicines practice
Inspectors found medicines were stored, administered and recorded safely. Staff received medicines training and competency checks.
“We looked at 10 medicine administration records (MAR) and found that medicines were being administered safely.” from the report
Personalised care planning
Care plans included people's needs, risks, communication methods, preferences and personal histories. Relatives said they were involved in reviews.
“Care plans contained personal histories and details of people's families, loved ones or advocates.” from the report
Open management
The manager was visible and approachable. Concerns raised during the inspection were acted on promptly, and audits and feedback systems were used.
“The registered manager had created a positive culture at the service where the support needs of people came first.” from the report
Too few activities
needs fixingPeople told inspectors they were often bored. Inspectors saw people sitting in communal areas without meaningful activities, and staff did not always have enough time to engage with them.
“There were not enough activities available for people living at the service and people told us they were often bored.” from the report
Missing risk assessments
seriousSome risk assessments covering falls, self-neglect and diabetic episodes were missing on the first inspection day. The manager completed them and updated staff before the second day.
“Risks including falls, self-neglect and diabetic episodes were found to be missing for some people.” from the report
Unpleasant smell
minorInspectors noticed that the smell in the lounge was not always pleasant on either inspection day. The manager agreed to monitor this closely.
“On both days of the inspection, we found the smell in the lounge area was not always pleasant.” from the report
- 01What activities are now available each day, and how do you make sure they reflect each person's interests?
- 02Has the activities coordinator started, and what difference has this made to people's daily experience?
- 03How do you check that risk assessments for falls, self-neglect and diabetic episodes remain complete and up to date?
- 04What action has been taken to prevent the unpleasant smell in the lounge from returning?
- 05How much time do staff have to sit with people and support social interaction?
This was a focused inspection of Safe, Responsive and Well-led; Effective and Caring were not inspected and the overall rating used previous ratings for questions not inspected. This explanation was written from the published report of 8 December 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, September 2018
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and person-centred care, with some improvements still being developed.
Inspectors visited on 28 and 29 August 2018. The first day was unannounced. They spoke with people living in the home, a visitor, staff and health and social care professionals. They also reviewed care plans, medicines, staff records, complaints, accidents and quality checks.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicines systems and suitable risk assessments. People were supported with food, drinks, healthcare and activities that matched their needs and choices.
Inspectors found staff knew people well and treated them with kindness, dignity and respect. They also found that complaints were handled appropriately and that the registered manager used feedback and audits to plan improvements.
This was the first inspection under the current provider registration. The report also says there was an identical report for the previous provider registration, because the company name had changed.
Safe care and medicines
People's risks were assessed and managed, and inspectors found medicines were ordered, stored, given and disposed of safely.
“There were systems in place to ensure medicines were ordered, stored, administered and disposed of safely.” from the report
Kind and respectful staff
Staff knew people's histories, needs and preferences. Inspectors saw warm interactions and respect for privacy, dignity and personal choices.
“People were supported by staff who knew them well and were kind and caring.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans covered personal care, health, mobility, nutrition, interests and communication. Staff used this information to provide individual support.
“People received care and support that was person-centred and responsive to their individual needs and preferences.” from the report
Food and health support
People could choose from freshly cooked food and received support for individual nutritional needs. Staff helped people access GPs and other healthcare services.
“People were offered a choice of healthy, freshly cooked meals, drinks and snacks each day which they told us they enjoyed.” from the report
Activities and feedback
The home offered group and individual activities, while respecting people's choices not to join in. Feedback from people and staff was used to make changes.
“There was an activity program and this included a range of group and individual activities provided by staff and outside entertainers.” from the report
Staff competency checks still being introduced
needs fixingFormal documented checks for some areas, including moving and handling, personal care and helping with meals, were still being introduced. Only some had been completed at the inspection.
“A few of these had been completed and the process was ongoing.” from the report
Policies needed to be personalised
minorThe home's policies had been reviewed and updated, but inspectors found they had not yet been tailored to this service before being shared with staff.
“During the inspection it was identified that the policies had not been personalised to the service.” from the report
Laundry concerns
minorTwo people said they were not always happy with the laundry system. The manager was working with people and staff to resolve this and planned a way to record minor concerns.
“Two people told us they were not always happy with the laundry system.” from the report
Some planned improvements remained outstanding
needs fixingA recent fire risk assessment had identified actions that still needed to be completed. Re-decoration was also ongoing, and life histories identified in a dignity audit were still being developed.
“A recent fire risk assessment had been completed and this identified areas where action was required.” from the report
- 01What formal competency checks have now been completed for moving and handling, personal care and helping with meals?
- 02What actions from the recent fire risk assessment have been completed, and are any still outstanding?
- 03How was the laundry system changed after people raised concerns about it?
- 04Have the home's policies now been personalised and shared with staff?
- 05How do you use people's feedback to decide which activities, meals and other improvements to provide?
This was an overall inspection covering all five CQC areas, including care, premises, records, medicines, staffing, complaints and quality systems. This explanation was written from the published report of 21 September 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 Jubilee Court
2 rated inspections over 4 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- December 2022Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Good
- September 2018GoodSafe: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- March 2018
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 26 March 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.