CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Jameson House
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors were assured that infection outbreaks could be prevented or managed, and that the home used suitable policies, testing, personal protective equipment, cleaning and visiting arrangements.
- Effective?
- Good
- Does the care work? Training, consent, food and drink, working with GPs and nurses.
- Caring?
- Good
- Are people treated with kindness and dignity?
- Responsive?
- Good
- Is care built around the person? Care plans, activities, complaints.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Is the home run well? The manager, the culture, how problems get found and fixed.
What inspectors found, March 2021
Jameson House was inspected but not rated; inspectors found strong infection prevention and control measures.
This was an unannounced inspection on 25 February 2021. It was a targeted check of infection prevention and control during the coronavirus pandemic, rather than a full inspection of all aspects of care.
Inspectors were assured that the home had suitable infection control policies and was managing visitors, testing, personal protective equipment, cleaning, social distancing and admissions safely. Staff had received relevant training and were using protective equipment properly.
The home was inspected but not rated overall, and the Safe question was also inspected but not rated. This means the report gives findings about infection control but does not give a Good, Outstanding, Requires improvement or Inadequate rating.
Infection control
The home had infection prevention and control guidance in place and was following it to reduce the spread of infection.
“The service was following correct infection prevention and control guidance and policy to protect people from infection and prevent the spread of infection.” from the report
Testing and visits
People and staff were being tested, while visitors were screened and tested before entry. Visits were arranged in advance to reduce exposure to others.
“All visitors were screened and rapid tested prior to entering the premises and visits from relatives were pre-arranged with agreed times to reduce exposure to others living there.” from the report
Protective equipment and cleaning
Staff had infection control training, used personal protective equipment correctly, and the home had increased cleaning of frequently touched surfaces.
“Cleaning schedules had increased with regular hard surface and high touch cleaning carried out throughout the day.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01What is the home's most recent full inspection rating for areas not covered by this targeted inspection?
- 02How are visitors currently screened and tested before entering the home?
- 03How often are high-touch surfaces cleaned now, and how is this recorded?
- 04What infection control training and personal protective equipment arrangements are currently in place for staff?
- 05How are relatives supported to keep in contact if an in-person visit is restricted?
This was a targeted, unannounced inspection of infection prevention and control during the coronavirus pandemic; it did not rate the wider quality of care. This explanation was written from the published report of 23 March 2021 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, October 2017
Jameson House was rated Good; inspectors found kind, personalised care, with a medicines recording error and some planned premises work.
This was a comprehensive inspection over two days, on 27 September and 2 October 2017. Inspectors observed care, spoke with the manager and staff, contacted relatives and reviewed care records, recruitment files, training records and quality checks.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. People were treated with dignity, supported to make choices and helped to take part in activities and community life.
Inspectors found enough trained staff and personalised care plans. They also found that two medicines had been given but staff had not signed the records. The manager took immediate action. Some replacement carpeting and kitchen worktop refurbishment were also planned.
Kind and respectful care
Inspectors saw staff providing calm, considerate and compassionate support. Staff understood people's individual ways of communicating.
“People were treated with dignity and respect and staff interacted with people in a kind, caring and sensitive manner.” from the report
Skilled staffing
There were enough staff on duty, and recruitment checks had been completed. Staff had relevant training, supervision and competency checks.
“There were sufficient numbers of skilled, well trained and qualified staff on duty.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans reflected people's health, welfare, safety needs and preferences. People were supported to make choices and take part in activities and outings.
“Care plans were personalised and covered different aspects of people's health, welfare and safety needs” from the report
Open management
The manager was visible and accessible. Audits and meetings were used to identify shortfalls and plan improvements.
“The registered manager had a number of systems in place to show that it aimed to deliver high quality care.” from the report
Medicines records
needs fixingInspectors found that two medicines had been given but staff had not signed the administration records. The manager investigated and took immediate action to prevent this happening again.
“We found two items of medicine for one each for two people where the amount of stock available did not match with the records of administration.” from the report
Planned premises work
minorThe stairs needed replacement carpeting and the kitchen worktops needed refurbishment. The manager provided an action plan with timescales.
“We noted there was a need for replacement carpeting to the stairs and some refurbishment of kitchen worktops.” from the report
Staff turnover
minorThe manager reported high staff turnover during the previous year. There were no vacancies at the inspection and inspectors saw enough staff on duty.
“The registered manager told us they had experienced a high turnover of staff in the last year but there were no staff vacancies at the time of our inspection.” from the report
- 01What checks are now used to make sure every medicine given is signed for on the administration record?
- 02Has the replacement carpeting on the stairs and the kitchen worktop refurbishment been completed?
- 03How has the home managed the high staff turnover reported in the previous year?
- 04How are people who cannot communicate verbally involved in everyday decisions and care reviews?
- 05Which people are still waiting for Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards authorisation, and how are their rights protected while they wait?
This was a comprehensive inspection covering all five CQC questions, the premises and the care provided; the home had been rated Good at the previous inspection and remained Good. This explanation was written from the published report of 25 October 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 Jameson House
2 rated inspections over 2 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- March 2021Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- October 2017Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- June 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- November 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- September 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 25 September 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
35 live-in carers within about an hour of Essex
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. 25 can care for a couple. 10 years' experience on average.
“Not only was she professional, polite and efficient but she bought a lovely smile and laughter to my parents home.”
“She brought fun and stimulation into mums life.”
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.