CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Jaden House
Rated Requires improvement: inspectors found the home was not performing as well as it should and told it what to change.
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 Risk information was unclear or out of date.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.
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
Safeguarding failures
seriousSeveral 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
seriousMedicine 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
seriousRisk 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 fixingPeople 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
seriousSeveral 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
seriousQuality 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
- 01What action has been taken to report and investigate safeguarding incidents and allegations of abuse?
- 02How are medicine refusals, missing doses and destroyed medicines now recorded and reported to prescribers?
- 03Have all staff completed the required recruitment checks and essential training before working with people?
- 04How are risk assessments and care plans being updated after incidents and used to provide consistent support?
- 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.
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.
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
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How would you assess and support my relative's goals for moving towards supported living or other accommodation?
- 02What staffing would be available for my relative, including any one-to-one or two-to-one support?
- 03How would my relative be supported if they wanted to manage some or all of their own medicines?
- 04How would you support my relative's communication needs, choices, relationships and emotional wellbeing?
- 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.
Every inspection of Jaden House
3 rated inspections over 8 years: the service has slipped, from Good to Inadequate.
- December 2023Inadequatecurrent ratingdown from GoodSafe: InadequateEffective: GoodCaring: OutstandingResponsive: GoodWell-led: Inadequate
- November 2017Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodWell-led: Good
- July 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- July 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- February 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- July 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- 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.
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.