CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Juniper
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People and relatives said they felt safe. Inspectors found effective safeguarding arrangements, assessed risks, enough staff, safe recruitment, safe medicines procedures and a clean, well-maintained home.
- Effective?
- Good
- Staff had relevant training and support and understood people's health needs. People were supported with food, healthcare, decision-making and independence.
- Caring?
- Good
- People and relatives described kind and respectful care. Inspectors observed positive interactions, and people were supported with privacy, dignity, communication, relationships and independence.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans were personalised and regularly updated. People helped plan their care, activities and routines, and knew how to raise concerns.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The home had an experienced registered manager, an open culture and regular checks and audits. People, relatives, staff and professionals gave positive feedback about how the home was run.
What inspectors found, March 2018
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with all five areas rated Good.
This was an unannounced inspection. Two inspectors spoke with the three people living at the home, staff, the manager, relatives and healthcare professionals. They reviewed care plans, risk assessments, medicines records, recruitment records, surveys and audits.
The home supported up to three people with learning disabilities. Inspectors found enough staff, safe recruitment, suitable training and effective safeguarding arrangements. The home was clean and well maintained, and medicines were stored and recorded safely.
People were involved in decisions about their care, food, activities and home. Inspectors saw kind relationships between people and staff. Care was personalised, people's health needs were supported, and the home helped people stay independent and involved in the community.
The home was rated Good in every area: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. It was also rated Good at the previous inspection in November 2016.
Kind relationships
People and relatives described respectful care, and inspectors saw kind interactions between staff and people.
“People and their relatives told us they were treated with kindness and respect.” from the report
Personalised care
People helped plan their care and support. Staff updated care plans when people's needs or health conditions changed.
“People were involved in planning their care and support during monthly reviews.” from the report
Choice and independence
People made choices about food, activities, household tasks and how they were supported. The home encouraged people to be as independent as possible.
“People were supported to make decisions about the food they ate, and staff supported people to maintain a balanced diet.” from the report
Strong health support
Staff worked with healthcare professionals and had guidance for people's individual health conditions.
“Staff worked with external organisations to ensure people's health needs were met.” from the report
Stable leadership
The manager had worked at the home for many years. Staff, relatives and professionals said the home was well led and responsive.
“The registered manager was skilled and experienced at providing person-centred care.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01What is the current position on the application for authorisation relating to the kitchen cupboard locks?
- 02How would you support my relative if they have behaviours that may challenge?
- 03How will you involve my relative and our family in monthly care plan reviews?
- 04What support would my relative receive for their specific health conditions, medicines and appointments?
- 05How would you respect and record my relative's wishes if they needed end of life care?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five CQC questions; the report's date field says 22 January 2018, while the detailed section describes the site visit as 19 January 2018. This explanation was written from the published report of 14 March 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 Juniper
2 rated inspections over 2 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- March 2018Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- January 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- June 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- June 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 3 December 2010.
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
39 live-in carers within about an hour of Kent
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. 33 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“Always on time and with a lovely smile for my mum. Theresa is kind and sensitive to my mum's needs.”
“Irene was a very kind and empathetic carer who knew just the right words to say to put a smile on my face.”
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.