Skip to content
The Care Home DirectoryEvery care home in England

CQC report explained · a residential care home

What the CQC found at Jaden House

Requires improvementpublished 28 July 2025, 14 months ago

Rated Requires improvement: inspectors found the home was not performing as well as it should and told it what to change.

The latest report, explained

What inspectors found, December 2023

Rated Inadequate and placed in special measures; inspectors found serious problems with safeguarding, medicines, person-centred care and management.

This was an unannounced focused inspection on 16 and 19 October 2023. Two inspectors spoke with four people, five staff and five professionals. They reviewed care plans, risk assessments, medicines records, staff files and management records.

The home was not always safe. Safeguarding concerns were not always reported or properly investigated. Risk information was unclear or out of date. Medicines records showed unexplained omissions and refusals. Recruitment checks and staff training were also incomplete.

People were not always given enough choice, independence or control. Some rules restricted access to medicines, communal areas and the front door. Care records lacked detail, and inspectors found examples of controlling communication and people not being involved in decisions.

The overall rating changed from Good at the previous inspection, published in 2017, to Inadequate. The inspection only assessed Safe and Well-led. The home is in special measures while improvements are monitored.

What inspectors praised
  • Infection control

    Inspectors found safe infection prevention practices, appropriate protective equipment and a cleaning schedule. Professionals said the home was always clean.

    “People were protected from the risk of infection as staff were following safe infection prevention and control practices.” from the report
  • Staffing levels

    The provider had enough staff on shift, according to staff and the report. People also said the staff team was consistent and knew them well.

    “Staff told us they felt there were always enough staff on shift, and they all work together to cover the shift.” from the report
  • Keyworker support

    People had regular meetings with keyworkers who knew them well. People said they felt able to raise concerns with staff, their keyworker and the manager.

    “People had keyworkers who knew them well. they spent one day each week with their keyworker and had keyworker meetings.” from the report
  • Medicines storage

    Although medicines were not always administered safely, inspectors found that they were stored safely and cabinet temperatures were monitored.

    “Medicines were stored safely. For example, staff monitored the daily temperature of the medicines cabinet” from the report
What inspectors were concerned about
  • Safeguarding failures

    serious

    Several incidents and allegations were not reported or properly investigated. In one case, a staff member continued to work one-to-one with a person after an allegation of abuse.

    “People were not consistently safeguarded from abuse and avoidable harm.” from the report
  • Medicine errors

    serious

    Medicine records contained unexplained entries and repeated refusals or destructions that were not reported promptly. Prescribers were not always informed.

    “There were 7 occasions where red crosses were entered on one person's medicine administration record, with no explanation of what this meant” from the report
  • Unclear risk information

    serious

    Risk assessments were sometimes unclear, out of date or not updated after incidents. Staff may not have had enough information to support people safely.

    “People's risk assessments did not have enough information to guide staff on how to support people safely.” from the report
  • Too little choice and independence

    needs fixing

    People who could manage their own medicines still had to receive them in the office. People were restricted from communal areas after 11pm and did not have their own front door key.

    “People were not supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives” from the report
  • Incomplete staff checks and training

    serious

    Several staff files lacked employment histories, interview records or identity checks. Some staff started before enhanced DBS checks were completed, and some essential training was missing.

    “Some staff started work before having an enhanced DBS in place and there was no risk assessment on place.” from the report
  • Weak management oversight

    serious

    Quality systems did not identify the problems found by inspectors. There was no effective action plan, and incidents were not properly reviewed for learning.

    “The provider's quality assurance processes were not effective, and had not identified the concerns we found during the inspection.” from the report
Questions to ask them, based on this report
  1. 01What action has been taken to report and investigate safeguarding incidents and allegations of abuse?
  2. 02How are medicine refusals, missing doses and destroyed medicines now recorded and reported to prescribers?
  3. 03Have all staff completed the required recruitment checks and essential training before working with people?
  4. 04How are risk assessments and care plans being updated after incidents and used to provide consistent support?
  5. 05How can people now choose where to receive medicines, access communal areas and enter their home independently?

This was a focused inspection of Safe and Well-led only; the other key question ratings were carried over from the previous inspection in 2017. This explanation was written from the published report of 23 December 2023 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.

An earlier report, explained

What inspectors found, November 2017

Jaden House was rated Good overall; inspectors found Outstanding caring, with safe, effective, responsive and well-led support.

This was an unannounced inspection on 29 September 2017. One inspector spoke with four people living at the home, two staff members and the deputy manager. The registered manager was away but spoke with the inspector by telephone. Records, medicines, staffing, training, care plans and quality checks were also reviewed.

Inspectors found people were safe and supported by enough suitably trained staff. Medicines were stored and given safely. People were supported with health care, food, activities, education and developing their independence. Staff asked for consent and followed the Mental Capacity Act principles.

Caring was rated Outstanding. Inspectors found staff to be exceptionally kind and respectful, and to understand people's needs, wishes and personal histories. The other four areas were rated Good. The report says the home was meeting the legal requirements and that no concerns had been identified at the previous inspection in June 2015.

What inspectors praised
  • Kind and respectful staff

    Staff understood people well and offered sensitive emotional support. Inspectors saw a relaxed culture based on dignity, respect and compassion.

    “Staff were extremely kind, compassionate and caring. They knew people and their family circumstances very well and provided sensitive support to help people at difficult times.” from the report
  • Building independence

    People were encouraged to make choices, take informed risks and develop skills for more independent living. Their goals and progress were recorded and reviewed.

    “People were supported to develop their skills, knowledge and progress towards achieving their life goals.” from the report
  • Personalised support

    Care plans included people's preferences, communication needs, emotional wellbeing, activities and aspirations. Staff updated them as people's needs and goals changed.

    “These plans were extremely person centred and included information about people's behaviour, religion, emotional wellbeing, medication, activities and communication.” from the report
  • Safe medicines practice

    Medicines were securely stored, checked and recorded. People who wished to manage their own medicines had risk assessments and suitable arrangements.

    “Effective systems were in place for the safe storage and administration of medicines.” from the report
  • Good oversight

    The home used audits, meetings, feedback and incident reviews to monitor quality and follow up actions.

    “Robust systems were in place to monitor and assess the quality and safety of the home and these were kept under review by the registered manager and staff.” from the report
What inspectors were concerned about

Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.

Questions to ask them, based on this report
  1. 01How would you assess and support my relative's goals for moving towards supported living or other accommodation?
  2. 02What staffing would be available for my relative, including any one-to-one or two-to-one support?
  3. 03How would my relative be supported if they wanted to manage some or all of their own medicines?
  4. 04How would you support my relative's communication needs, choices, relationships and emotional wellbeing?
  5. 05How are support plans reviewed with the person and updated when their needs or goals change?

This was an unannounced inspection of the overall service covering Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. This explanation was written from the published report of 18 November 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.

The story over the years

Every inspection of Jaden House

3 rated inspections over 8 years: the service has slipped, from Good to Inadequate.

  1. December 2023Inadequatecurrent ratingdown from Good
    Safe: InadequateEffective: GoodCaring: OutstandingResponsive: GoodWell-led: Inadequate

    Read what inspectors found at Jaden House →

  2. November 2017Goodstayed Good
    Safe: GoodWell-led: Good

    Read what inspectors found at Jaden House →

  3. July 2015Good
    Safe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  4. July 2014

    Report published without a new overall rating.

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  5. November 2013

    Report published without a new overall rating.

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  6. February 2013

    Report published without a new overall rating.

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  7. July 2012

    Report published without a new overall rating.

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  8. April 2011

    Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 4 April 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.

Next steps

Weigh the report against the rest

Care at home

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.”
Emily B., about Prisca S.
“He stayed with her throughout the pandemic, refusing to visit his own family, who lived nearby, to reduce the risk of infection.”
Roderick N., about Jaison M.
See live-in carers near HampshireProfiles, rates and reviews are free to look at.

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.