CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Jasmine House
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
What inspectors found, April 2021
Jasmine House was inspected but not rated; inspectors found strong COVID-19 infection control measures.
This was an announced, targeted inspection on 9 March 2021. It focused on infection prevention and control during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Inspectors found clear procedures for professional visitors, including screening, temperature checks and personal protective equipment. The home had also arranged screened and garden visits.
Staff had training and checks on using protective equipment. People living in the home and staff were tested regularly, and risks linked to the pandemic had been assessed.
The home was inspected but not rated. This visit does not provide an overall rating of the quality of care.
Visitor infection controls
Visitors were screened, had their temperatures checked and were required to wear protective equipment. Visits were arranged in advance to reduce the risk of infection spreading.
“Visitors were screened and had their temperatures checked by staff on arrival.” from the report
Safe visiting arrangements
The home had arranged screened and garden visits. These were scheduled to avoid possible infection transmission between visitors.
“The service had been facilitating 'screened visits' and 'garden visits'.” from the report
Staff training and testing
Staff had training and competency checks on putting on and removing protective equipment. People living in the home and staff were tested regularly.
“Staff had received training and had their competency checked for donning and doffing PPE safely.” from the report
Pandemic planning
The registered manager had developed COVID-19 guidance and assessed risks to people's and staff's health, safety and wellbeing.
“The registered manager had developed procedures and guidance for people and staff in response to the COVID-19 pandemic.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How are visitors currently screened and how are visits arranged to reduce infection risks?
- 02How are staff's skills in putting on and removing protective equipment checked now?
- 03How often are people living in the home and staff tested, and what happens after a positive result?
- 04How are infection outbreaks prevented or managed?
- 05What changes have been made to the infection prevention and control policy since this inspection?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control as part of the COVID-19 pandemic response; the service was inspected but not rated. This explanation was written from the published report of 13 April 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, April 2019
Rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found kind, effective and responsive care, but safety checks and some safety measures needed improvement.
This was an unannounced planned inspection on 25 March 2019. One inspector reviewed information, care records, management checks and other records. They spoke with three people and two staff members.
People generally received kind and personalised care. Staff supported healthcare, activities, food choices and medicines well. Staffing levels matched people's assessed needs, and people said they felt safe and well cared for.
However, first-floor windows did not have restrictors. This created a risk because people could climb out. Safety audits also said the windows were safe when they were not. The home was rated Requires Improvement overall, with Requires Improvement for Safe and Well-led. Effective, Caring and Responsive were rated Good.
Kind and respectful care
Inspectors saw staff treating people with kindness and respect. People were encouraged to do things for themselves when they could.
“Our observations during the inspection were that staff treated people with kindness and respect.” from the report
Personalised support
Care was tailored to people's needs and interests. People could take part in activities and outings.
“Care was personalised to meet individual needs, and people were supported to follow their interests.” from the report
Safe medicines
Medicines were stored securely and administered by trained staff. Records were accurate and checked for mistakes.
“Medication administration records in use were accurate, and regularly checked for any mistakes.” from the report
Enough staff
Inspectors found enough staff on duty to support people safely. Staffing was described as consistent, including regular agency staff when needed.
“There were enough staff on shift to safely support people.” from the report
Unrestricted first-floor windows
seriousWindows, including bedroom windows, could be opened wide enough for someone to climb out. Inspectors said this meant vulnerable people were not fully protected from harm.
“This meant the premises were not fully safe for vulnerable people to be living in.” from the report
Unreliable safety audits
needs fixingA monthly health and safety check recorded that windows were restricted and safe, although no restrictors had been fitted. This meant the home's checks did not identify an important risk.
“Quality audits in place were not always effective.” from the report
Personal information left out
minorBank statements and healthcare information were left in paper trays in a communal kitchen. Staff moved the information to a locked area after inspectors raised the issue.
“The service had paper trays in the communal kitchen area, containing personal information belonging to people.” from the report
- 01Have window restrictors now been fitted to every first-floor window, including bedroom windows?
- 02How do you check that safety audits are accurate and that identified risks are acted on?
- 03What safeguards are now in place to keep people's bank and healthcare information secure?
- 04How do you make sure staffing levels continue to match each person's assessed needs?
- 05How will you show families that the service has improved since its previous Good rating?
This was an unannounced planned inspection covering all five CQC questions and both the premises and care provided. This explanation was written from the published report of 25 April 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.
Every inspection of Jasmine House
2 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has slipped, from Good to Requires improvement.
- April 2021Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- April 2019Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- March 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- February 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- March 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 5 January 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 Hertfordshire
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 £1,300 a week. 82 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“She handled the new situation in front of her with such professionalism and I felt I could trust her 100%.”
“She was v competent and confident and we felt our mum was safe in her care. She supported us through a difficult time.”
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.