This inspection took place on 6 February 2018 and was unannounced.

Jubilee House is a ‘care home’. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as single package under one contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection. Jubilee House was registered for up to seven people. There were seven adults living and receiving care and support from staff at Jubilee House at the time of our inspection. People had a variety of care and support needs related to maintaining their mental well-being, learning disabilities or autistic spectrum disorders as well as dementia.

A registered manager was in post at the time of the inspection visit. They were registered with the Care Quality Commission in January 2017 with the current provider. However, they had been registered with the previous provider Positive Approach Services Led since 2011. 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.

This was the services first inspection under the current provider.

We found concerns with the safe administration of medicines. The provider was following unsafe practice, which was not within best practice guidelines.

Plans were not in place to minimise all risks to people who used the service. For example, where a person was a diabetic.

We found concerns with the fire risk assessments for parts of the building and learning from fire drills was not acted upon.

The audits that were taking place were not robust enough to highlight the concerns we raised.

The premises had not been adapted to support people who were now living with dementia.

We have made a recommendation about the premises.

Although staff had received training, they did not fully understand all the subjects such as Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). Records showed that training in certain subjects was out of date. Staff were supported from supervisions and a yearly appraisal . Staff had received training in Mental Capacity Act (2005) and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) however could not demonstrate a basic understanding of the requirements of the Act. The registered manager did not understand their responsibilities in relation to the DoLS.

We have made a recommendation about further MCA and DoLS training.

A number of recruitment checks were carried out before staff were employed to ensure they were suitable.

We found there were enough staff employed to support people with their assessed needs. However, certain times throughout the day they could be short. We were told that extra staff were put on the rota to cover appointments or if people wanted a day out.

People enjoyed the food provided and were offered choice.

People said staff were kind and caring and we saw independence was promoted.

Staff could easily demonstrate a person centred approach to care, they knew people and their life history’s well. However, we found that care plans needed more structure and some care plans were not in place.

There were no regular arrangements to engage people in meaningful activities.

We have made a recommendation about activities.

The service had a complaints policy that was applied if and when issues arose. People and their relatives knew how to raise any issues they had. The service had received no complaints.

We identified two breaches of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014. You can see what action we told the registered provider to take at the back of the full version of the report.