Attention: The information on this website is currently out of date and should not be relied upon..

Care Services

carehome, nursing and medical services directory


JKs Majestical Care Limited, Kent Road, Southampton.

JKs Majestical Care Limited in Kent Road, Southampton is a Homecare agencies specialising in the provision of services relating to caring for adults over 65 yrs, dementia, learning disabilities, mental health conditions, personal care, physical disabilities and sensory impairments. The last inspection date here was 4th May 2019

JKs Majestical Care Limited is managed by Majestical Care Ltd.

Contact Details:

    Address:
      JKs Majestical Care Limited
      2 Linwood Cottage
      Kent Road
      Southampton
      SO17 2UR
      United Kingdom
    Telephone:
      02380982937
    Website:

Ratings:

For a guide to the ratings, click here.

Safe: Requires Improvement
Effective: Requires Improvement
Caring: Good
Responsive: Good
Well-Led: Requires Improvement
Overall:

Further Details:

Important Dates:

    Last Inspection 2019-05-04
    Last Published 2019-05-04

Local Authority:

    Southampton

Link to this page:

    HTML   BBCode

Inspection Reports:

Click the title bar on any of the report introductions below to read the full entry. If there is a PDF icon, click it to download the full report.

4th December 2018 - During a routine inspection pdf icon

The inspection took place on 4 December 2018 and was announced to ensure staff we needed to speak with were available.

This service is a domiciliary care agency. It provides personal care to older people living in their own houses and flats in the community. The service currently provides a service to two people.

There was a registered manager in place. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are ‘registered persons’. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

The service has been the subject of an ongoing large-scale safeguarding enquiry conducted by the local authority. The Care Quality Commission and the local authority have both received concerns about the care and safety of people using the service.

Recruitment procedures were not robust and did not always ensure that staff were safe to work with people who receive care. There was no evidence that staff had received training in safeguarding people and there had been one incident the service should have referred to the local authority safeguarding team, but this had not been done. Staff supported people to take their medicines but there were gaps in the records which meant it could not be evidenced that people had taken their medicines as prescribed. The registered manager completed risk assessments which covered the environmental risks for where people lived, as well as moving and handling and the use of equipment, however, one risk assessment did not identify a health risk to the person or give information on how to manage the associated risks for them safely.

There was not a suitable staff training programme in place to ensure staff’s training was up to date, consistent and designed to meet people’s needs. There was not an effective system of support for staff, such as an induction to their role, regular supervision or an annual appraisal.

There was not a clear vision or credible strategy to deliver high-quality care and support. The governance framework did not ensure that staff’s responsibilities were clear. The governance of the service had not resulted in improvements being made for people.

The registered manager ensured there were sufficient numbers of staff to support people’s needs. There were systems in place to protect people from the risk of infection. Where incidents had occurred, lessons were learnt by the registered manager and staff. The registered manager visited people at hospital or at home to assess their needs before they agreed to provide people with a service. Staff supported people with preparation of both their meals and shopping, where necessary. People were supported to access healthcare professionals when necessary. The registered manager and staff had worked together with healthcare professionals which meant people received treatment and support which met their needs.

People felt they were supported by caring staff. People were supported by staff who ensured people made their own choices. Staff were mindful of people’s privacy and dignity. People received personalised care that was responsive to their needs. The service had supported people with end of life care. The provider had a complaints procedure in place and people had a copy in their care plan. The registered manager sought feedback from people using the service, which was positive.

9th June 2016 - During a routine inspection pdf icon

The inspection was carried out on the 9 and 17 June 2016. Forty-eight hours’ notice of the inspection was given to ensure that the registered provider we needed to speak with was available.

JKs Majestical provided personal care to older adults living in their own homes. At the time of our inspection ten people were receiving personal care from the agency.

Medicines were managed safely and people received their medicines when they needed them although records did not show why there were some gaps in the medicine administration records.

Staff were completing training although this had not all been completed by new staff. Staff were receiving formal and informal supervision. Essential pre-employment checks were undertaken.

There were sufficient staff to provide people with the care they required. People said staff were caring. Staff spoke to people in a kind and patient manner. We observed staff supporting people with respect whilst assisting them to maintain their independence as much as possible.

People and their relatives said they were very happy with the service and care they received. They told us care was provided to them with respect for their dignity by a consistent care staff team. Care staff, and the registered provider always asked for consent from people before providing care.

Staff were aware how to spot the signs of abuse and report it appropriately. People said they felt safe with care staff and were complimentary about the staff caring for them.

People’s care plans were person-centred and their preferences were respected. Care plans were reviewed regularly and people felt involved in the way their care was planned and delivered.

Staff said they worked well as a team and that the registered provider was supportive and provided guidance when they needed it. Formal quality monitoring systems were in place.

29th July 2014 - During an inspection to make sure that the improvements required had been made pdf icon

In April 2014 we completed a scheduled inspection and found the agency had not complied with previous compliance actions. We issued two warning notices which told the provider that they must take action to ensure compliance with the regulations of the Health and Social Care Act 2008. During this inspection we assessed how the provider had complied with these regulations relating to cleanliness and infection control and record keeping.

We considered all the evidence we had gathered under the outcomes we inspected. We also spoke with one staff member and the registered manager who was also the provider. We used the information to answer the questions we always ask to determine if the service;

Is the service safe?

Is the service effective?

Is the service caring?

Is the service responsive?

Is the service well-led?

This is a summary of what we found-

Is it safe?

People’s needs had been assessed and care plans were clear and informative. Staff were aware of people’s needs and how to meet them. Risks relevant to individual people had been identified and care plans contained guidance on how these should be managed. Records kept of people’s care were clear and understandable.

Systems were in place to manage the risk of infections. However, the manager had not yet completed an infection control audit or annual infection control statement. Staff were booked to attend infection control training.

We have asked the provider to tell us what they are going to do to meet the requirements of the law in relation to infection prevention and control.

Is it effective?

Records of care people had received stated people had been cared for in line with their care plans. Records also showed that where two staff were required these had been provided. This meant people were receiving effective care as detailed in their care plans.

Is it caring?

We spoke with one staff member who was able to talk about the individual needs of the people they looked after. They said they had time to meet people’s needs. They described how they had stayed longer than planned with a person who had been unwell whilst waiting for an ambulance and the person’s relatives to arrive. This showed they were considerate of the person’s needs.

Is it responsive?

The manager had addressed the majority of the concerns raised at the previous inspection in April 2014. Where some action had not yet been completed they were aware of what needed to be done. The manager had sought external guidance and assistance to ensure they met the regulations. This showed they had responded to the concerns raised and taken action to rectify these appropriately.

Is it well-led?

Staff told us the manager was available to talk to at any time. One staff member told us, “[They] are really approachable. You can discuss anything with them”. The agency now had a care supervisor and some management tasks had been delegated to them. This meant the manager had more time to complete other management tasks.

21st November 2013 - During a routine inspection pdf icon

At the time of our inspection there were eight people using the service. We spoke with two of them, and with two family members who were closely involved in their relative’s care. They were all satisfied the service provided effective care and support. One person said the service was “very good, very friendly. They know exactly what they are doing”. Another said they were “first class”.

People using the service told us their care and support were delivered in a caring way. One person said, “They are very good, always very helpful, always with a smile.” Another told us, “They even made me a cake on my birthday.”

Care and support were delivered with people’s consent and agreement. People using the service and family members confirmed care plans and risk assessments were compiled with their participation. The provider listened to people and was responsive if they changed their mind about care. One person said, “Whatever you ask, they do.”

We found the provider had care plans which were based on assessments of people’s needs. The plans were designed to ensure effective care was delivered. Risk assessments were in place to protect people from the risk of care or support which did not ensure their safety and welfare.

The provider took steps to obtain people’s consent and agreement to their care and support. They were aware of the required processes if people did not have capacity to make decisions.

The service did not have any employees at the time of our inspection, with care being delivered by the registered manager and other managers of the agency. Procedures were in place to support staff in future to deliver care to the required standard.

Care workers took practical steps to protect people from the risk of cross infection. However we found the service was not following published guidance designed to ensure people continued to be protected against the risks of healthcare associated infections. There was no on-going training in infection control. Training records and other records relating to the management and recruitment of staff were either not kept or not managed in a systematic way.

31st October 2012 - During a routine inspection pdf icon

We spoke on the telephone to family members of all three people who use the service, because the people using the service themselves had complex needs which meant they were not able to tell us their experiences directly. The family members told us that they were satisfied with the care provided to their relatives and that their privacy and dignity were respected. They said that the agency was "very good" and that they had "no concerns". They told us that the agency was always available and responsive to requests. They said that they were not always consulted about their relatives' care plans and the provider did not contact them proactively to assess the quality of their service. We spoke to one social care professional who told us they were "generally impressed" with the agency and had no concerns.

We found that care plans did not ensure the privacy and dignity of people using the service and that they were not protected against the risk of unsafe or inappropriate care. Risk assessments were incomplete and did not have associated action plans. Procedures to protect people from abuse or neglect were inadequate and staff had not undertaken recent training in safeguarding. The provider was not regularly assessing the quality of the service provided and was not regularly seeking the views of people or relatives who could act on their behalf. The provider was not maintaining accurate and appropriate records in relation to the management of the regulated activity.

1st January 1970 - During a routine inspection pdf icon

The inspection was carried out on the 21 and 22 May 2015. Thirty six hours’ notice of the inspection was given to ensure that the registered manager we needed to speak with was available.

JK’s Majestical Care Limited provides personal care to older adults with varying levels of physical disability or mental health needs living in their own homes. At the time of our inspection 12 people were receiving care from JK’s Majestical Care Limited.

The service had a registered manager. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are ‘registered persons’. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

Following a previous inspection in April 2014 we also asked the provider to take action to make improvements in relation to the management of medicines, recruitment procedures, staff training and quality assurance procedures. We set compliance actions and the provider sent us an action plan telling us they would meet the requirements of the regulations by September 2014. At our last inspection, in July 2014 we asked the provider to take action to make improvements to infection control records. At this inspection we found action had been taken to make these improvements with the exception of ensuring all staff had completed all necessary training.

Staff had not completed all training appropriate to their role. People said staff were caring and that they promoted a friendly atmosphere with them. Staff spoke to people in a kind and patient manner and assisted people in an unhurried way. We observed staff supporting people with respect whilst assisting them to maintain their independence as much as possible.

People and their relatives said they were very happy with the service. They told us care was provided to them with respect for their dignity. Staff, and the registered manager, knew how the Mental Capacity Act 2005 affected their work. They always asked for consent from people before providing care.

There were enough staff to support people effectively and staff were knowledgeable about how to spot the signs of abuse and report it appropriately. People said they felt safe with care staff and were complimentary about the staff caring for them. The provider followed safe processes to check staff they employed were suitable to work with older people. Medicines were managed safely and people received their medicines when they needed them.

People’s care plans were person-centred and their preferences were respected. Care plans were reviewed regularly and people felt involved in the way their care was planned and delivered. People were asked for feedback on the service they received and any concerns were addressed promptly.

Staff said they worked well as a team and that the registered manager provided support and guidance as they needed it. Improvements had been made to the service following feedback from people, staff and quality monitoring procedures.

We found one breach of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) regulations 2014. You can see what action we told the provider to take at the back of the full version of this report.

 

 

Latest Additions: