CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Jasmine House
Rated Outstanding: inspectors found the home performing exceptionally well.
- Safe?
- Good
- People felt safe and staff understood safeguarding and individual risks. Risks were managed in a way that supported people's choices and freedom.
- Effective?
- Good
- People's physical, mental health and social care needs were assessed. Staff had relevant training and supported people with food, healthcare and independence.
- Caring?
- Outstanding
- Staff were exceptionally kind and respectful. People were involved in decisions about their care and were supported to live as they wished.
- Responsive?
- Outstanding
- Care plans were detailed and individual. Staffing was arranged flexibly so people could work, attend activities, maintain relationships and pursue their interests.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The home had a strong person-centred culture, clear oversight and an emphasis on learning. People, relatives and staff were involved in decisions and quality improvement.
What inspectors found, July 2019
Jasmine House was rated Outstanding overall; inspectors found exceptionally caring and responsive support, with the other areas rated Good.
This was an unannounced inspection on 20 May 2019. The inspector spoke with all four people living at the home, staff, relatives and care professionals. They reviewed care plans, medicines records, staffing information and management records.
People were found to be safe and supported by suitably trained staff. Risks were assessed and managed without unnecessarily restricting people's freedom. Medicines, infection control, equipment and staffing arrangements were also found to be safe.
The strongest findings were about kindness, respect and personal choice. Staff supported people to work, build relationships, take part in activities, care for pets and live in ways that mattered to them. The home was rated Outstanding for caring and responsive support, and Good for safe, effective and well-led care.
The home was rated Good at the previous inspection in April 2017. Inspectors found no concerns at this inspection and said they would re-inspect within the published timeframe for services rated Outstanding.
Kind and respectful care
People and relatives described staff as exceptionally compassionate. Inspectors observed a strong culture in which people were treated as individuals and their dignity was protected.
“People and their relatives spoke in glowing terms of how exceptionally compassionate and kind staff were.” from the report
People have real choice
People helped shape their own care and could decide how they spent their time. Staff checked what people wanted instead of making assumptions.
“People had control over each aspect of their care and their lives, they lived life as they wished.” from the report
Support for fulfilling lives
Staff helped people take part in paid or voluntary work, education, relationships, community activities and hobbies. Support was adjusted around people's interests and aspirations.
“Staff provided people with a truly responsive service, tailored around each person's needs and aspirations.” from the report
Stable and skilled staff team
The staff team was established and stable, with no agency staff being used. Staff had relevant training, qualifications and knowledge of people's needs.
“The staff team was very well established and stable.” from the report
Manager registration record
minorAt the inspection, two managers were registered with the CQC even though only one still worked at the home. The provider said it had since taken the required steps to correct this.
“The service had two managers registered with the Care Quality Commission, only one of whom still worked at the service.” from the report
- 01How would you match the staffing and support to my relative's particular needs, choices and aspirations?
- 02Is the staff team still stable, and do you still avoid using agency staff?
- 03How are risks managed while helping people keep control of their money, activities and time outside the home?
- 04How will my relative's communication needs be recorded and supported, including the use of easy-read information if needed?
- 05Has the issue with the manager who no longer worked at the home being registered with the CQC been fully resolved?
This was an unannounced planned inspection covering the premises, care and all five CQC questions. This explanation was written from the published report of 2 July 2019 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, April 2017
Rated Good; inspectors found kind, safe care, but management arrangements and some records needed attention.
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection on 2 March 2017. The inspector spoke with people living in the home, staff, relatives and health and social care professionals. They also checked care records, staff files, medicines records, audits and meeting minutes.
People told inspectors they felt safe and cared for by kind staff who knew them well. Staff supported people to make choices, stay healthy, manage medicines safely and take part in activities, work and daily tasks. The five areas inspected were all rated Good.
The home did not have a registered manager because the previous manager had stepped down. An operations manager was overseeing the home while recruitment took place. Inspectors also found that some supervision, audits, care records and medicines records needed improvement, and were told action had been taken or planned.
People felt safe
People said they felt safe, and staff understood how to recognise abuse and manage individual risks. Environmental checks and emergency plans were also in place.
“People told us they felt safe living at Jasmine House and were supported by kind and caring staff.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Inspectors saw staff being patient and calm. People were listened to, involved in decisions and supported to keep their independence.
“Our observations indicated that staff showed people kindness and patience and provided care in a calm and quiet manner.” from the report
Skilled staff
Staff had training and experience suited to the needs of the people living in the home. They worked with health professionals when needed.
“People were supported by staff who had appropriate skills and experience to deliver care their care the expected standard.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans included people's routines, communication, likes, dislikes and goals. Staff supported people with work, shopping, cooking and personal interests.
“Staff were taking action to support people to access activities, follow their interests and where appropriate to access work opportunities.” from the report
No registered manager
needs fixingThere was no registered manager at the time of the inspection. Recruitment was under way, while the operations manager oversaw the home.
“The home did not have a registered manager.” from the report
Care records were not always accurate
needs fixingSome records did not clearly match the care people received. Examples included inconsistent nutritional information, an incorrect repositioning instruction and missing seizure care information.
“Some of the records relating to people's care could be more accurate and clearly reflect the care people received.” from the report
Medicines records needed improvement
needs fixingSome medicines were not included in administration records and checks. There was also no record that one person's homely remedies had been approved by their GP.
“Some of the records relating to the management of medicines were not being maintained in line with the provider's policies and procedures.” from the report
Supervision and audits had slipped
needs fixingStaff supervision had become less frequent, and some planned audits had not been completed during management changes. The provider said these arrangements would be restored.
“Some of the management functions such as providing regular supervision and undertaking some audits had slipped” from the report
Staffing and activities
minorThe small staff team sometimes needed agency staff when someone was absent, which could affect continuity. A relative also wanted more staff at weekends and better in-house activities.
“it was not always possible for the remaining staff to cover their shifts which meant agency staff were required.” from the report
- 01Has a registered manager now been appointed, and how is the home being overseen until then?
- 02How do you check that care plans and daily records accurately describe the care people receive?
- 03How are medicines records, including 'as required' medicines and homely remedies, checked now?
- 04What staffing arrangements are in place at weekends and when regular staff are absent?
- 05What regular supervision, audits and meaningful activities are now provided?
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection covering all five CQC questions; the overall rating remained Good, while the caring rating changed from Outstanding to Good. This explanation was written from the published report of 7 April 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 Jasmine House
3 rated inspections over 4 years: the service has improved, from Good to Outstanding.
- July 2019Outstandingcurrent ratingup from GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: OutstandingResponsive: OutstandingWell-led: Good
- April 2017Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- March 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: OutstandingResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- May 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- June 2012
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 11 June 2012.
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.