CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Emily Jackson House
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
What inspectors found, January 2019
Emily Jackson House was rated Good overall, but inspectors found leadership needed improvement during a change of managers.
Inspectors visited the home without notice on 4 December 2018. They spoke with people living there, relatives and staff. They observed care and checked care records, staff training, recruitment and quality checks.
The home was rated Good for being safe, effective, caring and responsive. Inspectors found people were protected from abuse, received medicines safely, had personalised care and were treated with kindness and respect.
The home was rated Requires Improvement for being well-led. The registered manager and deputy manager had left just before the inspection, and replacement managers were not yet in post. Inspectors found low staff morale and uncertainty about the changes, although systems for checking quality were in place.
Safe care and medicines
Inspectors found robust risk assessments, enough staff and safe systems for storing, giving and recording medicines.
“There were robust systems in place to reduce the risk of people being harmed.” from the report
Kind and respectful staff
People were treated with kindness and respect. Staff adapted how they communicated and supported people's privacy and independence.
“Staff engaged with people in a respectful manner.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans described people's individual needs and were reviewed regularly. People and relatives were involved as much as possible.
“Care plans were all up to date and were reviewed a monthly basis.” from the report
Activities and choice
People could choose how to spend their time and had access to activities such as arts and crafts, music and games.
“People were offered a range of activities they could engage in.” from the report
Management gap
needs fixingThe registered manager and deputy manager had left immediately before the inspection. A new manager and deputy had been appointed but had not both started.
“The registered manager of the service had left and a replacement was not yet in post.” from the report
Staff uncertainty
needs fixingInspectors saw low staff morale. Most staff spoken with felt unsure about the management changes and said they had not been kept fully informed.
“Most staff we spoke to felt unsure about the changes and felt that they had not been kept informed about how things would work going forward.” from the report
- 01Who is the registered manager now, and when did they start at the home?
- 02How were staff kept informed during the change in managers, and what was done to improve staff morale?
- 03How are care plan, medicines and infection control audits being completed and followed up now?
- 04How are residents and relatives told about meetings and changes affecting the home?
- 05How can residents and relatives raise a concern or complaint, and who will respond?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five CQC questions and the overall service; the overall rating remained Good, while well-led was rated Requires Improvement. This explanation was written from the published report of 24 January 2019 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.
What inspectors found, August 2017
Rated Good overall; this focused inspection found enough staff to meet people's needs, but it only checked staffing and safety.
This was an unannounced focused inspection on 23 June 2017. It followed concerns about staffing levels and related care. The inspector looked specifically at whether there were enough staff to meet people's needs.
The inspector spoke with people living in the home, relatives, staff and others. They checked rotas, care records, risk assessments, records of checks, accidents, audits and staff supervision records. They also observed care, including for people who could not communicate with the inspector.
The home was rated Good overall and Safe was rated Good. Inspectors found enough staff, suitable support for people at particular risks, and timely responses to call bells. The other four areas were not assessed in this focused inspection.
Staffing met people's needs
Inspectors found enough qualified, skilled and experienced staff. Staffing was based on people's needs and extra one-to-one support was provided where required.
“People's care needs were met by a sufficient number of staff.” from the report
Prompt responses
People and relatives said staff responded when help was needed. Inspectors found that calls for help were answered quickly during the visit.
“Calls for help were responded to by staff within four minutes on the day of our visit.” from the report
Risk support
Staff followed care plans for people at risk of falls, choking, pressure wounds and other risks. Inspectors saw this support being provided in practice.
“When people had been identified at risk of choking, staff sat with them while they ate and drank, ensuring that guidelines provided by speech and language therapists were followed.” from the report
Safe moving and handling
There was suitable equipment for people who could not move independently. Staff worked in pairs and explained what they were doing during transfers.
“Staff were unhurried, providing explanations to the person about what to expect next while they operated the equipment.” from the report
No registered manager
minorThere was no registered manager when the inspection took place. Temporary managers were overseeing the home until a newly appointed manager could start and apply for registration.
“There was not a registered manager in post.” from the report
Some recent staffing pressure
needs fixingA relative described a few days when the home was short-staffed and staff were rushing. Inspectors also recorded that staff had reported difficulty completing tasks before staffing was increased.
“There were a few days at the beginning of the month where they were short of staff, our mum did not suffer, it just meant the staff were rushing when usually they are quite calm, but it's all better now.” from the report
Meal waiting times
needs fixingAn internal inspection had found that people were waiting for meals. The home had introduced a new system to reduce waiting times, but inspectors said this would be checked at the next inspection.
“During an internal inspection visit in May 2017, the senior regional director had identified that people had been waiting for their meal to be served.” from the report
- 01Who is the registered manager now, and how was the change in management completed after the interim arrangements?
- 02How do you calculate staffing levels when people's care needs or the number of residents changes?
- 03What happened after staff reported difficulty completing their tasks, and has this happened again?
- 04Has the second hostess been recruited, and how do you make sure people do not wait for meals?
- 05How do you provide one-to-one support for people who need it, and how is this checked?
This was an unannounced focused inspection of staffing and related safety only; the other four question ratings were not assessed in this report. This explanation was written from the published report of 5 August 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 Emily Jackson House
3 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- January 2019Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- August 2017Goodstayed GoodSafe: Good
- June 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- November 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- October 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- March 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- February 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 15 February 2011.
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
39 live-in carers within about an hour of Kent
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 £1,260 a week. 33 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“Always on time and with a lovely smile for my mum. Theresa is kind and sensitive to my mum's needs.”
“Irene was a very kind and empathetic carer who knew just the right words to say to put a smile on my face.”
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.