CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Jacob's Lodge
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People said they felt safe. Inspectors found suitable staffing, risk assessments, safeguarding systems, safe medicines processes and effective infection control.
- Effective?
- Good
- People's needs were assessed before stays, staff were trained and consent was handled in line with the Mental Capacity Act. This rating improved from Requires Improvement at the previous inspection.
- Caring?
- Good
- Staff were kind, warm and respectful. People were supported to communicate in their preferred ways, make decisions and maintain their independence.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Support plans were personalised and activities reflected people's choices. The home responded to changing needs and was able to provide emergency respite stays.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Inspectors found positive leadership, quality checks and systems for gathering feedback. Some staff said support was not always followed up during difficult situations, although managers said they were working to improve communication.
What inspectors found, May 2020
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised short-break care, with effective care improving since the last inspection.
This was an unannounced planned inspection. One inspector visited on 10 March 2020, spoke with people, relatives and staff, and checked care, medicines, recruitment, training and management records.
The home supports adults with learning disabilities, autistic spectrum disorders and physical disabilities for short breaks. Inspectors found people were safe, treated with kindness and supported to make choices, build skills and become more independent.
All five areas were rated Good. The Effective rating improved from Requires Improvement at the previous inspection. The other four ratings remained Good, as did the overall rating.
Kind and respectful care
Staff used warm and respectful approaches. They listened to people, respected privacy and adapted communication to individual preferences.
“Interactions between people and staff were kind, caring, positive and warm.” from the report
Safe staffing and medicines
Inspectors saw enough staff to meet assessed needs. Medicines were recorded, stored and administered by trained staff, with extra guidance for medicines given when needed.
“People received their medicines safely in line with their preferences and by staff who knew them well from their regular stays with Jacob's Lodge.” from the report
Personalised activities and communication
The home offered activities based on people's interests and used pictures, symbols and other accessible information to support communication.
“People were supported to do activities of their choice and had access to a range of activities including themed film nights, arts and crafts, knitting, music, shopping, cinema, theatre and bowling.” from the report
Learning from incidents
The provider investigated incidents, sought outside advice after medicines incidents and strengthened its checking systems.
“Where an incident or accident had occurred, the provider had robust procedures in place to investigate the cause, learn lessons and take remedial action to prevent a recurrence.” from the report
Staff support and communication
minorSome staff said they had not always felt fully supported or listened to, particularly during difficult situations. Managers recognised that communication still needed to become firmly established.
“The past year has been incredibly hard. We've had a lot of emergency situations that we've had to rely on each other and sometimes the support offered is not always followed up.” from the report
- 01How will you make sure staff receive prompt support and follow-up during emergencies or difficult situations?
- 02How will you record and review any changes in a person's needs, preferences or communication before each stay?
- 03How are medicines brought in for each stay checked, recorded, stored and handed back safely?
- 04Which activities and communication methods would you offer to meet my relative's specific preferences and needs?
- 05How can relatives give feedback, attend reviews or raise a complaint?
This was an unannounced planned inspection covering all five key questions, the premises and the care provided. This explanation was written from the published report of 1 May 2020 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, September 2017
Rated Good overall, but inspectors found improvements were needed in consent decisions and hospital information.
This was an unannounced inspection on 4 and 10 August 2017. One inspector spoke with people using the service, relatives, managers and staff. They also checked care records, medicines, recruitment files, complaints, incidents and quality checks.
The home was rated Good overall. Safe, caring, responsive and well-led were rated Good. People were described as safe and treated with kindness. Staff were available, trained and knowledgeable about people's needs. Care plans were detailed and activities were available.
Effective was rated Requires Improvement. Records did not always show that decisions made for people who could not consent had been made in their best interests. Not everyone had a hospital passport. The provider said it planned to complete these by the end of August 2017.
This was the home's first ratings inspection since it registered with the CQC in January 2016. The report did not say that any regulations were breached or that enforcement action was taken.
People felt safe
People and relatives said they felt safe. Inspectors found enough staff and plans to manage risks and emergencies.
“People felt safe and secure when receiving support from staff members.” from the report
Safe medicines support
Staff were trained and assessed as competent to give medicines. Records showed medicines had been given as prescribed.
“Medication administration records (MAR) confirmed people had received their medicines as prescribed.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Staff knew people well and supported their dignity, privacy, choices and independence.
“People were cared for with kindness and compassion.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans gave detailed information about people's needs, routines and preferences. Families were involved in planning and reviews.
“Care plans were comprehensive and detailed, including physical health needs and people's mental health needs.” from the report
Activities and choice
People could choose from daily activities, trips and time in the community, or choose to stay at home.
“Organised activities were held daily.” from the report
Supportive management
Staff described managers as approachable and supportive. Audits and meetings were used to monitor the service.
“There was an open and transparent culture within the home.” from the report
Best-interest decisions were not recorded
seriousFor some people who could not consent, records did not show that decisions had been made in line with the Mental Capacity Act and in their best interests. This included decisions about bed rails and hidden medicines.
“In these cases, best interest decisions had not been recorded.” from the report
Missing hospital passports
needs fixingNot everyone had a hospital passport containing important information about their health, medicines, care and communication needs. The provider said these were being completed.
“However, the service did not have a 'Hospital passport' in all people's care files.” from the report
- 01Have best-interest decisions now been recorded for everyone who cannot consent, including decisions about bed rails and hidden medicines?
- 02Does each person now have a completed hospital passport, and how is it kept up to date?
- 03How are family survey results analysed and turned into an action plan?
- 04How will staffing levels be adjusted if the needs of people staying at the home change?
- 05How are families involved in care plan reviews and decisions about activities?
This was an unannounced first ratings inspection covering all five key questions; the service had registered with the CQC in January 2016. This explanation was written from the published report of 7 September 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 Jacob's Lodge
2 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- May 2020Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- September 2017GoodSafe: GoodEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- January 2016
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 14 January 2016.
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
26 live-in carers within about an hour of Hampshire
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 £1,020 to £1,260 a week. 23 can care for a couple. 14 years' experience on average.
“I cannot recommend Prisca highly enough, she is one in a million.”
“He stayed with her throughout the pandemic, refusing to visit his own family, who lived nearby, to reduce the risk of infection.”
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.