CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Jansondean Care Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People said they felt safe. Inspectors found enough staff, appropriate recruitment checks, safe medicines management, risk assessments and infection control arrangements.
- Effective?
- Good
- Staff had completed relevant training and received supervision. People were supported with food, drink and healthcare, and staff followed the Mental Capacity Act and related safeguards.
- Caring?
- Good
- This key question was not covered by this focused inspection, so no rating was given in this report.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans described people's needs and preferences. The home had complaint arrangements, end of life planning and activities, although a new activities coordinator had only just been recruited.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The manager had introduced regular audits, staff meetings and spot checks. The report says the home did not have a registered manager in post, but the current manager was applying to become registered.
What inspectors found, February 2021
Rated Good; inspectors found clear improvements in staffing, medicines, care planning and management since the previous inspection.
This was an unannounced, focused inspection on 14 January 2021. One inspector spoke with people living in the home, a relative and staff. They also checked care, medicines, recruitment, training and management records.
The home was rated Good overall. Safe, Effective, Responsive and Well-led were all rated Good. Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicines practices, suitable care plans, staff training and better quality checks.
The home had previously been rated Requires Improvement, with several legal breaches. Inspectors found that improvements had been made and the home was no longer in breach of regulations.
This inspection did not look at every key question. Some earlier ratings were carried forward when calculating the overall rating.
Staffing
Inspectors found enough staff on duty and much less reliance on agency workers than at the previous inspection.
“Staff, people using the service and a relative told us there was always enough staff on duty.” from the report
Medicines
Medicines records showed that people received medicines on time and as prescribed. Records were complete and included guidance for medicines given when needed.
“MAR records had been completed in full and there were no gaps in recording.” from the report
Personalised care
Care plans described people's health, support needs and preferences. Staff could explain how they supported people with daily care.
“At this inspection we saw that people's care plans described their health care and support needs.” from the report
Quality checks
The manager had improved monitoring of the home. Audits were up to date and actions were taken when problems were identified.
“Regular audits were carried out at the home. We reviewed audits and saw these were up to date and actions were taken when necessary” from the report
Activities staffing
minorThe activities coordinator had left the day before the inspection. Care staff were covering activities until a replacement started.
“The home's activities coordinator stopped working at the home the day prior to this inspection.” from the report
Registered manager
minorThere was no registered manager in post at the time of the inspection. The current manager was applying to the CQC to become registered.
“The home did not have a registered manager in post.” from the report
- 01Has the new activities coordinator remained in post, and what activities are now available?
- 02How many permanent care and nursing staff are currently employed, and how often is agency staff used?
- 03Has the current manager's application to become registered been completed?
- 04How often are care plans and risk assessments reviewed, and how are changes shared with families?
- 05What actions are taken when audits or spot checks identify a problem?
This was a focused inspection of Safe, Effective, Responsive and Well-led; Caring was not assessed in this report and some earlier ratings were carried forward. This explanation was written from the published report of 2 February 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 2020
Inspected but not rated; inspectors found good infection control, while the previous overall rating remained Requires Improvement.
This was a targeted, announced inspection on 23 October 2020. Inspectors checked infection prevention and control measures because they had received concerns about them.
They found the home was following government guidance. Visitors were screened, staff used personal protective equipment, the home was clean, and people and staff were being tested for COVID-19.
The inspection did not assess the whole service. It did not change the previous overall rating of Requires Improvement, and the Safe question was inspected but not rated.
Infection control
Inspectors found appropriate arrangements to prevent the spread of COVID-19. Staff were observed using personal protective equipment and keeping their distance.
“The provider had appropriate arrangements in place to help prevent the spread of Covid 19.” from the report
Clean environment
The home was clean and hygienic during the visit.
“We saw the home was clean and hygienic throughout.” from the report
Testing arrangements
Designated nursing staff carried out testing for people and staff in a consistent way.
“There were designated nursing staff that carried out all testing on people using the service and staff.” from the report
Keeping families connected
Although relatives were not visiting at the time, people could keep in touch with family and friends by telephone and video calls.
“They were able to communicate with their relatives using video calls and telephone calls.” from the report
Visiting had stopped at the time
minorNo relatives were visiting during the inspection because visits had temporarily ceased. The home had developed a procedure for future visits, so families should ask how this works now.
“There were no relatives visiting people at the home.” from the report
- 01What are the current visiting arrangements, and what happens if a visitor has symptoms of infection?
- 02How are people and staff tested for infections now?
- 03Have you further developed your infection prevention and control approach following the resources CQC signposted?
- 04What is being done to improve the areas covered by the previous Requires Improvement rating?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control under Safe; it did not assess the whole service or change the previous overall rating of Requires Improvement. This explanation was written from the published report of 31 October 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.
Every inspection of Jansondean Care Home
8 rated inspections over 6 years: the service has improved, from Inadequate to Good.
- February 2021Goodcurrent ratingSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- October 2020Inspected but not ratedSafe: Inspected but not rated
- March 2020Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: InadequateEffective: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- February 2019Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- June 2016Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- October 2015Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementEffective: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- July 2015Requires improvementup from InadequateSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- May 2015Inadequatestayed InadequateSafe: InadequateEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Inadequate
- January 2015InadequateSafe: InadequateEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Inadequate
- September 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- April 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- March 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- July 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- May 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- July 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- August 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- April 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 26 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
At least 100 live-in carers within about an hour of Bromley
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 £980 to £1,260 a week. 83 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
“She cared for my mum with Alzheimer's with endless patience and kindness, always arriving with a smile and a positive attitude”
“Usha rapidly became 'one of the family' and is sorely missed.”
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.