Jack Simpson House

People said they felt safe with staff; staff practice showed they knew them well. People were at ease and looked comfortable in the company of staff. People commented, “I feel safe here. The staff are trained and know what they are doing” and “I feel safe and the carers are ready to help when I need it.”

Staff demonstrated an understanding of what might constitute abuse and knew how to report any concerns they might have. For example, staff knew how to report concerns within the organisation and externally such as the local authority, police, and the Care Quality Commission (CQC). Staff had received safeguarding training, to ensure they had up-to-date information about the protection of vulnerable people.

We found the service was working within the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and if needed, appropriate legal authorisations were requested to deprive a person of their liberty.

People’s individual risks were identified, and the necessary risk assessment reviews were carried out to keep people safe. For example, risk assessments had been carried out for mobility, falls, diabetes, eating and drinking and skin care. Where indicated, monitoring charts were in place to ensure people received safe care and support. There was evidence that learning from incidents and investigations took place and appropriate changes were implemented.

The provider ensured there were sufficient numbers of staff deployed to meet the needs of the people at the service. The registered manager explained that staff skills were integral to enable people’s care and support needs to be met. They added that people received support from a consistent staff team. This ensured people were able to build trusting relationships with staff who knew their needs. Staff were well trained and competent in their jobs. There were safe and effective recruitment and selection processes in place.

Staff knew how to respond to people’s specific health and social care needs. For example, recognising changes in a person’s physical health. Staff were able to speak confidently about the care they delivered and understood how they contributed to people’s health and well-being.

People were supported to see appropriate health and social care professionals when they needed to meet their healthcare needs. We saw evidence of health and social care professionals’ involvement in people’s individual care on an ongoing and timely basis. For example, GPs, community nurses and social workers. These records demonstrated how staff recognised changes in people’s needs and ensured other health and social care professionals were involved to encourage health promotion.

People said staff were kind, compassionate and caring. People commented: “

Staff relationships with people were caring and supportive. Staff spoke confidently about people’s specific needs and how they liked to be supported. Through our conversations with staff, it was clear they were committed and kind and compassionate towards people they supported. They described how they observed people’s moods and responded appropriately.

Staff adopted a strong and visible personalised approach in how they worked with people. Staff spoke of the importance of empowering people to be involved in their day to day lives. They explained it was important people were at the heart of planning their care and support needs.

Staff treated people with dignity and respect when helping them with daily living tasks. Staff told us how they maintained people’s privacy and dignity when assisting with personal care. For example, asking what support they required before providing care and explaining what needed to be done so that the person knew what was happening.

Staff adopted a positive approach in the way they involved people and respected their independence. For example, encouraging people to do as much as possible in relation to their personal care. People were supported to have choice and control over their own care and to make decisions about their care, treatment and wellbeing. People were supported to maintain relationships and networks that were important to them, this included access to their friends and family.

People received personalised care and support specific to their needs and preferences. Care plans reflected people’s health and social care needs. Relevant assessments were completed and up-to-date, from initial planning through to ongoing reviews of care, including cultural and religious preferences.

Care files included information about people’s history, which provided a timeline of significant events which had impacted on them, such as, their physical and mental health. People’s likes and dislikes were taken into account in care plans. Staff commented that the information contained in people’s care files enabled them to support them appropriately in line with their likes, dislikes and preferences.

People’s equality, diversity and human rights were respected. The service’s vision and values centred around the people they supported. The organisation’s statement of purpose documented a philosophy of maximising people’s life choices, encouraging independence and people having a sense of worth and value. For example, people were constantly encouraged to lead rich and meaningful lives to aid their physical, mental and emotional needs, including those related to protected characteristics under the Equality Act.

People’s care, treatment and support promoted equality, removed barriers or delays, and protected their rights. The service worked with other health and social care professionals in line with people’s specific needs. The provider completed monthly care reviews with people to gather feedback, where needed. This resulted in changes to people care and support. People confirmed they were involved in developing their care and support plan.

There were clear and effective governance, management and accountability arrangements in place and staff understood their role and responsibilities.

Systems were in place to monitor the quality and safety of the service. Audits were completed regularly as part of monitoring the service provided. These checks reviewed people’s care plans and risk assessments, medicines, incidents, accidents and health and safety. This enabled any trends to be spotted to ensure the service was meeting the requirements and needs of people being supported. Where actions were needed, these had been followed up. For example, care plans and risk assessments were updated and relevant health and social care professionals were involved.

The service was open, honest, and transparent with people when things went wrong. The management team recognised their responsibilities under the duty of candour requirements and followed the service's policies.

The service had notified CQC in full about any significant events at the service. We use this information to monitor the service and ensure they respond appropriately to keep people safe.

Staff spoke positively about communication and how the registered manager worked well with them, encouraged teamwork and an open person-centred culture.