Archived: Jasmine House

Updated 24 May 2017

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection checked whether the provider is meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Health and Social Care Act 2008, to look at the overall quality of the service, and to provide a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014.

This unannounced inspection took place on 18 April and was carried out by one inspector.

Prior to our inspection, we reviewed information we held about the service. This included any information received and statutory notifications. A notification is information about important events which the provider is required to send us by law. Before the inspection, the provider completed a Provider Information Return (PIR). This is a form that asks the provider to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they plan to make.

The service was a family run home whose whole personnel consisted of two registered managers living on the premises. The service did not employ any other staff. We spoke with one person who used the service, two relatives and both registered managers. We observed the care and support provided to people and the interaction between the managers and people throughout our inspection. We reviewed two people's care files, records relating to training, and general management of the home.

Updated 24 May 2017

This unannounced inspection took place on the 18 April 2017. Jasmine House is a family run home within a residential setting and can accommodate a maximum of three people with age related needs. There were two people living at Jasmin House at the time of the inspection.

At the last inspection on 10 October 2015, the service was rated Good. At this inspection we found the service remained Good.

People remained safe living in the home. Risks to people had been identified, assessed and were managed safely. The managers were aware of their responsibilities and knew how to identify and report abuse. The managers also performed the role of staff which was sufficient to support people with their assessed needs. People’s medicines were managed safely.

People continued to receive effective care from the managers who had the skills and knowledge to support them and meet their needs. People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and both registered managers supported them in the least restrictive way possible; the procedures in the service supported this practice. People were provided with nutritious homemade meals which looked appetising and which people enjoyed. People had access to healthcare when they needed it and recommendations from healthcare professionals were implemented.

The service continued to provide support in a caring way. We saw that people were treated with dignity and respect. People's requests for support or assistance were responded to promptly and with kindness. People had positive relationships with the managers and were treated in a caring and respectful manner.

The service continued to be responsive to people's needs and ensured people were supported in a personalised way. People's changing needs were responded to promptly. People had access to a variety of activities that met their individual needs. People said they were involved in making decisions regarding their care. People and their relatives were aware of how to make a complaint. However, there had been no formal complaints recorded at the service.

The service was led by two registered managers who promoted a service that put people at the forefront of all the service did. The managers had clearly defined roles and responsibilities, and provided each other with on-going support with their roles. There was an appropriate quality monitoring system in place for the service being provided, underpinned by a "Continuous Quality Improvement" statement and approach.