CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at SENSE Jenny Chapman House
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Requires improvement
- Medicines were stored and given safely, but records did not always match medicine stocks. Inspectors also found no night-time fire drill and saw a situation where staff did not intervene when a person led the inspector into the dining room and then struck them.
- Effective?
- Good
- Staff received relevant training and people had access to health and social care professionals. The home followed the Mental Capacity Act and supported people with food, drink and dietary needs.
- Caring?
- Good
- Staff were described as kind and knew people's communication methods, preferences, health needs and interests. People and relatives were involved in care planning and reviews.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans were detailed and personalised. People were supported with hobbies, outings, holidays and daily routines that reflected their wishes.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The home had a registered manager, regular team meetings and quality monitoring systems. However, those systems had not identified the medicine recording problems or the need for a night-time fire drill.
What inspectors found, October 2017
Rated Good overall; inspectors found kind, responsive care, but safety checks and medicine records needed improvement.
The inspection was unannounced and took place on 26 and 29 September 2017. One inspector reviewed care records, medicines, staffing, management records and the quality of the service. People could not speak with the inspector in depth because of their complex health needs, so the inspector also observed care and spoke with relatives, staff and the manager.
The overall rating was Good. Effective, caring, responsive and well-led were all rated Good. Safe was rated Requires Improvement. Medicines were managed safely, but medicine stock records were not always accurate. The home had also not held a fire drill at night, when staffing levels were lowest.
Inspectors found enough staff, safe recruitment, suitable training and detailed care plans. People were supported with food, health care, activities and their personal preferences. The previous inspection in November 2015 found the service meeting the standards inspected, and this inspection found it continued to meet those standards, although some safety improvements were needed.
Enough suitable staff
Inspectors found enough staff to meet people's needs. Recruitment checks, including references and criminal record checks, were in place.
“There were sufficient staff to meet people's needs.” from the report
Personalised care
Care plans explained people's routines, preferences and interests clearly. Inspectors saw staff follow these plans in practice.
“People's care plans were detailed and person centred.” from the report
Kind and respectful support
Staff were friendly, respected privacy and dignity, and understood how people communicated when speech was limited.
“Staff were kind and friendly with people. Staff interacted with people in a way that was appropriate to the person they were supporting.” from the report
Activities and choice
People were supported to enjoy activities and outings, including swimming, shopping, trips to pubs, rock climbing and holidays.
“People were supported to enjoy hobbies and interests in and outside of the home.” from the report
Medicine records
needs fixingMedicine administration appeared safe, but records did not always match the stock held. Records of medicines sent to day centres, carried over or returned to the pharmacist were not accurate.
“However we checked a random sample of boxed medicines and those in the pharmacy blister packs and found that stocks were not always accurate with the records.” from the report
No night-time fire drill
needs fixingFire checks and drills took place, but there had not been a drill when night staffing was lowest and people might be in bed. The manager said this would be arranged urgently.
“However, there had not been a fire drill during the night time hours.” from the report
Managing risks during busy periods
needs fixingDuring the inspection, staff did not stop a person taking the inspector into the dining room, even though this could have been a trigger at a busy time. The report said this might put visitors or people living at the home at risk.
“They did not intervene or stop the person taking the inspector to the dining room even though this may be a trigger to people during a busy time of the day.” from the report
- 01How were the medicine recording problems fixed, and how are medicine stocks now checked against the records?
- 02Have night staff completed a fire drill since this inspection, and what was learned from it?
- 03How do staff manage busy periods when a person's behaviour may become more difficult or risky?
- 04How are relatives involved in reviewing care plans and checking that people's goals are being met?
- 05Which health needs can the home support, given that it is not registered to provide nursing care?
This was an unannounced inspection of all five key questions; people could not speak with the inspector in depth, so observations and views from relatives and staff were also used. This explanation was written from the published report of 20 October 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 SENSE Jenny Chapman House
2 rated inspections over 2 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- October 2017Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- November 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- July 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 29 November 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
At least 100 live-in carers within about an hour of Hertfordshire
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 £1,300 a week. 82 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“She handled the new situation in front of her with such professionalism and I felt I could trust her 100%.”
“She was v competent and confident and we felt our mum was safe in her care. She supported us through a difficult time.”
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.