CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Juniper House Residential Care Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
What inspectors found, October 2019
Juniper House Residential Care Home was rated Good overall, but inspectors found staffing arrangements were not always safe and rated Safe Requires Improvement.
Inspectors visited without notice on 3 and 5 September 2019. They spoke with people living at the home, relatives, staff and a healthcare professional. They also checked care records, medicines records, staff rotas, training and incident records.
The home was rated Good overall. Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led were all rated Good. Inspectors found kind care, personalised support, activities, good access to healthcare and systems for checking quality.
Safe was rated Requires Improvement. Inspectors were not assured there were always enough staff to keep people safe and meet their needs. Communal lounges were not always monitored as planned, including on a dementia unit. Records of some end-of-life discussions and care plan reviews were also not consistently complete.
The previous overall rating was Good, published in March 2017. Safe had fallen from Good to Requires Improvement. The report says CQC would continue monitoring information about the home and return under its inspection programme.
Kind and respectful care
People and relatives said staff were kind. Inspectors observed warm, thoughtful and respectful interactions.
“We observed a number of warm, thoughtful and respectful interactions between staff and the people they were supporting.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans reflected people's current needs and what mattered to them. Staff said they read and followed these plans.
“People's care plans were individual to them and provided staff with guidance on people's current care needs and what was important to them.” from the report
Activities and social contact
People could take part in activities based on their interests, including trips, arts and crafts, exercise and group activities.
“The flexible programme of activities on offer included arts and crafts, fun exercise classes, intergenerational story sessions with visiting children, group games and quizzes, and trips to local places of interest.” from the report
Clean environment
Inspectors found the home clean and hygienic. Staff had protective equipment and laundry was handled in a way intended to reduce infection risks.
“We found the home to be clean and hygienic throughout.” from the report
Health and nutrition support
People were offered support with eating and drinking, including specialist diets where needed. Staff monitored health and worked with healthcare professionals.
“The provider ensured people had the support they needed to eat and drink enough.” from the report
Staffing and supervision
seriousInspectors were not assured that staffing levels were enough to keep people safe and consistently meet their needs. A communal lounge was left without staff for 10 minutes, and staff and healthcare professionals raised concerns about staffing.
“We were not assured the provider effectively deployed sufficient numbers of staff to keep people safe and consistently meet their needs.” from the report
Mental capacity records
needs fixingSome mental capacity assessments were not specific to the decision being made. This included the use of motion sensors intended to reduce falls risk.
“Formal mental capacity assessments had not been conducted in relation to the use of PIR motion sensors to reduce some people's risk of falls.” from the report
Care records
needs fixingCare plans were reviewed and updated, but the outcomes of reviews were not clearly recorded. The home said its electronic system would be adapted.
“Whilst people's care plans were reviewed and updated on a regular basis, the outcomes of these reviews were not clearly recorded.” from the report
End-of-life wishes
needs fixingThe home had a process for discussing people's future care wishes, but the results of these discussions were not always recorded consistently.
“However, the outcomes of such discussions were not consistently recorded.” from the report
- 01How many staff are planned for each unit and shift, and how do you make sure communal lounges are always supervised?
- 02What has changed since the inspection to reduce risks for people who may fall, particularly on the dementia unit?
- 03How are mental capacity assessments now linked to specific decisions, such as using motion sensors?
- 04Can you show how care plan reviews and their outcomes are recorded?
- 05How do you record and review each person's wishes about future and end-of-life care?
This was an unannounced planned inspection covering all five CQC questions, including the premises and care provided. This explanation was written from the published report of 10 October 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, March 2017
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with good leadership and no breaches reported.
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection on 28 February 2017. Inspectors spoke with people living in the home, visitors, relatives, care staff and managers. They also observed care and checked care records, audits, medicines information and meeting notes.
The home was rated Good overall. All five areas were rated Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. People said they felt safe, staff responded promptly, medicines were given when needed, and care respected their choices, privacy and dignity.
Inspectors found that staff understood people's needs and supported their health, nutrition, hobbies and daily choices. The manager and provider used audits, feedback and action plans to monitor the service and make improvements.
People felt safe
People told inspectors they felt safe and staff knew how to support risks such as using walking equipment or hoists. Staff were available when people needed help.
“People felt safe and free from the risk of abuse and there were sufficient staff throughout the day to support people's needs.” from the report
Trained staff
Staff understood people's conditions and care needs. Inspectors were told that training, including dementia care and medicines training, helped staff provide care.
“People's care needs and preferences were supported by trained staff.” from the report
Respectful care
Staff listened to people's choices and supported their privacy, dignity and independence. People could follow their preferred routines and decide where to spend their time.
“Staff provided care that was respectful of their privacy and dignity and took account of people's individual preferences.” from the report
Quality monitoring
The provider used regular audits covering care planning, people's needs, accidents and the environment. Action plans were made when improvements were identified.
“The provider had a robust programme of audits in place to monitor the quality and safety of people's care and support.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How many staff are normally available during the day and at night, and how do you adjust staffing when people's needs change?
- 02How do you manage medicines prescribed to be given when needed, such as extra pain relief?
- 03What activities and one-to-one time would be available for my relative, including if they prefer to stay in their room?
- 04How would my relative and our family be involved in reviewing their care plan and reporting changes in their needs?
- 05How can we raise a concern, and how would it be recorded and followed up?
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection covering all five CQC questions and providing an overall rating. This explanation was written from the published report of 31 March 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 Juniper House Residential Care Home
2 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- October 2019Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
Read what inspectors found at Juniper House Residential Care Home →
- March 2017GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
Read what inspectors found at Juniper House Residential Care Home →
- July 2015
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 24 July 2015.
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
At least 100 live-in carers within about an hour of Worcestershire
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. 85 can care for a couple. 9 years' experience on average.
“I have never met a person who is so kind and thinks about others before himself to such an extent as Chris Malagala.”
“She was very caring, kind and patient to all his needs, she built up a wondetful rapport with him, she was dedicated and was there for him through good times as well as through the tough times”
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.