CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Jane Percy House
Rated Outstanding: inspectors found the home performing exceptionally well.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found safeguarding, risk management, staffing, medicines and infection control systems were in place. People said they felt safe.
- Effective?
- Good
- The home was accessible and staff understood people's complex needs. People received suitable food, staff training and support from health professionals.
- Caring?
- Outstanding
- People were involved in decisions about their care and were supported to express their views. Staff promoted dignity, equality, independence and personal goals.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care was personalised and communication needs were understood. People chose activities, maintained relationships and had access to a complaints process.
- Well-led?
- Outstanding
- Inspectors found an inclusive and empowering culture, strong teamwork and effective quality checks. People were involved in committees, policy reviews and recruitment.
What inspectors found, April 2020
Jane Percy House was rated Outstanding; inspectors found exceptionally caring, person-centred support and strong leadership.
This was an unannounced planned inspection. One inspector spoke with people living at the home, relatives and staff. They reviewed care records, medicine records, training information and management checks.
The home was rated Outstanding overall. Caring and well-led were rated Outstanding. Safe, effective and responsive were rated Good. People were supported to make choices, build independence and achieve personal goals.
Inspectors found staff knew people well and treated them with kindness, dignity and respect. People helped shape their care, activities, the environment and even staff recruitment. The previous overall rating was Good, so the overall rating improved.
People had a strong voice
People helped write their care plans and took part in decisions about the environment, safety, policies and staff recruitment.
“People were empowered by staff who supported and encouraged people to live the life they wanted, to achieve their goals and have a voice.” from the report
Exceptional kindness and respect
Staff supported people as individuals and built relationships based on kindness, dignity, respect and humour.
“People and staff had formed exceptional relationships which focused on respect, kindness, compassion, empathy and fun.” from the report
Support for independence
People were helped to build confidence, work, travel, join the community and move towards more independent living.
“Some people were being supported to achieve their goals of moving out of Jane Percy House into more independent living environments.” from the report
Good understanding of individual needs
Staff adapted communication and care to people's physical, emotional, dietary and communication needs.
“Staff had attended training specific to people's complex needs which meant they had an exceptional understanding of people's emotional and physical needs.” from the report
Strong leadership and teamwork
Inspectors found clear roles, open communication and quality checks involving both staff and people living at the home.
“A range of audits and quality assurance systems were in place to make sure people received good quality care that met regulatory requirements.” from the report
Timely accident records
minorThe report says the home had learned that body maps needed to be completed promptly after accidents. This suggests record keeping in this area had needed improvement, although no breach was reported.
“Lessons had been learnt in relation to the need to complete body maps in a timely manner following any accidents.” from the report
- 01How will you make sure body maps are completed promptly after any accident?
- 02How will my relative be involved in writing and reviewing their care plan?
- 03How would you adapt communication if my relative has particular communication needs?
- 04How could my relative take part in activities, work, travel or other goals that matter to them?
- 05How would you support my relative to manage their own medicines, if appropriate?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five CQC questions, including both the care provided and the care home's premises. This explanation was written from the published report of 3 April 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, August 2017
Rated Good in every area; inspectors found safe, caring and personalised support, with some cleanliness and building-maintenance issues to address.
The inspection was unannounced and took place on 5 June 2017. The inspector spoke with people living in the home, staff and the acting manager. They observed care and reviewed care plans, medicines records, staffing, recruitment, training, maintenance and quality checks.
The home remained Good, as it had been at the previous inspection in March 2015. Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicines support, suitable training and access to health professionals. People were supported to make choices, stay connected with their families and take part in activities and the local community.
The main shortfalls were cleanliness on the day of the visit and worn hallway carpets. The home had an action plan for the cleanliness issue. The report says the provider was carrying out maintenance and considering future building changes.
Staffing and safeguarding
Inspectors found enough staff to provide individual support. Staff understood how to recognise and report abuse, and recruitment checks were in place.
“There were sufficient numbers of staff available to keep people safe and provide individual care.” from the report
Personalised care
Care plans recorded people's preferences, communication methods and support needs. Staff knew the people they supported and helped them make choices.
“People were encouraged to make choices about their day to day lives.” from the report
Kind and respectful support
People were treated with patience, dignity and respect. Staff asked permission before providing care and took time to listen.
“Staff were kind, caring and respectful.” from the report
Activities and independence
People took part in hobbies, outings and community activities. The home supported people to develop independence, including going out locally and using public transport.
“People were supported to follow their interests and hobbies.” from the report
Quality monitoring
The home used regular audits, meetings and feedback to identify actions and monitor care and safety.
“Regular audits were completed internally to monitor service provision and to ensure the safety of people who used the service.” from the report
Cleanliness
needs fixingInspectors found debris on a lounge carpet and in hallways during the day, as well as an unpleasant odour in one bedroom. The home submitted an action plan after the inspection and was asked to review arrangements for cleaning when domestic staff were unavailable.
“We looked around the communal areas and saw a lounge carpet and the hallways had debris on them that remained there during the day.” from the report
Worn carpets and building condition
minorSome hallway carpets were worn and had tape over damaged areas. The provider had identified this and was doing maintenance, but wider refurbishment was delayed while possible structural changes were considered.
“We also observed some hallway carpets were showing signs of wear and tear and tape had been placed over areas where the carpet had worn” from the report
- 01What action was taken after the inspection to keep communal areas and bedrooms clean when domestic staff were unavailable?
- 02Have the worn hallway carpets and taped areas now been repaired or replaced?
- 03Who is currently managing the home, and how have the temporary management arrangements affected day-to-day care?
- 04How will you make sure staffing levels continue to provide individual support when people's needs change?
- 05How are people and their families involved in reviewing care plans, activities and decisions about support?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five CQC questions and the overall quality and safety of the home. This explanation was written from the published report of 9 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 Jane Percy House
3 rated inspections over 5 years: the service has improved, from Good to Outstanding.
- April 2020Outstandingcurrent ratingup from GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: OutstandingResponsive: GoodWell-led: Outstanding
- August 2017Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- June 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- June 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- June 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 6 December 2010.
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
23 live-in carers within about an hour of Northumberland
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 £950 to £1,190 a week. 20 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
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.