CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Jasper Lodge
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found that risks such as seizures, choking, finances and self-harm were assessed and understood by staff. Medicines records were up to date, staff were trained, and there were enough staff to meet people's needs.
- Effective?
- Good
- Care plans covered people's medical, social and emotional needs and were reviewed when needs changed. Staff had relevant training, including training for specific needs, and people were supported with nutrition and access to health professionals.
- Caring?
- Good
- Inspectors saw positive and respectful relationships between people and staff. People were involved in decisions, their communication styles were understood, and their privacy and independence were promoted.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Support plans recorded people's preferences, interests and how they wanted to be supported. People were encouraged to take part in hobbies and activities, and there was a system for dealing with complaints and feedback.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Inspectors found clear leadership, a positive staff culture and systems to monitor care quality and safety. Feedback and complaints were used to help make improvements.
What inspectors found, April 2019
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind, personalised care and strong management.
This was an unannounced planned inspection on 4 March 2019. One inspector observed care, spoke with people, relatives and staff, and checked care, medicines, recruitment and management records.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found that staff knew people well, medicines were handled safely, and care was tailored to people's needs, choices and interests.
People were supported to be independent and to make choices. Inspectors also found good training, links with health professionals, systems for complaints and effective checks on the quality and safety of care.
The home was last rated Good in August 2016, so the overall rating remained Good. This means the inspection found the service met the relevant standards, although the report reflects the evidence checked at that visit.
Consistent staff
People had core support teams, so they were supported by familiar staff who knew their needs well. The report says agency staff were no longer being used because there were enough employed staff.
“People had a core support team, which meant there was consistency in who supported them” from the report
Safe medicines
Medicines records were completed correctly and staff understood people's individual medicine needs. Staff also knew when and how to offer medicines prescribed for use when needed.
“Medicines administration record sheets (MAR) were up to date and had been completed correctly by the staff administering the medicines.” from the report
Personalised support
Care was built around people's individual preferences, needs and wishes. Staff supported people to enjoy their interests and to have choice and control in their daily lives.
“People received person-centred care, which was tailored around their individual preferences, needs and wishes.” from the report
Independence and communication
Staff understood people's different ways of communicating and supported people to make decisions. Inspectors found examples of people gaining more independence with everyday tasks.
“One person had developed their own particular sign language, which staff understood and used to communicate with the person.” from the report
Strong management checks
The provider and manager used audits and other checks to monitor care and address shortfalls. Staff described an encouraging and organised management approach.
“The registered manager and provider had quality assurance measures and systems in place to monitor the quality and safety of the care provided.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How would you build and maintain a consistent core staff team for my relative?
- 02What specific training do staff have for my relative's health, communication and behavioural needs?
- 03How will you support my relative to keep their hobbies, activities and independence?
- 04How do you record and review medicines used when needed, including the reasons for giving them?
- 05How will my relative and our family be involved in care reviews and raising concerns?
This was an unannounced planned inspection covering all five CQC questions, including the premises and care provided; inspectors checked three people's care and medicines records and spoke with two people and two relatives. This explanation was written from the published report of 10 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.
What inspectors found, October 2016
Rated Good overall; inspectors found kind, personalised care, but staff support and some medicines records needed improvement.
Inspectors visited the home without notice on 6 and 8 July 2016. They spoke with six people, two relatives, staff and health and social care professionals. They also checked care records, staff files, rotas, medicines records and management records.
People were supported safely and treated with kindness and respect. Staff knew people well, understood their communication needs and provided care plans that reflected their preferences. There were enough staff to meet people's needs, and the home was clean and comfortable.
The main weakness was staff supervision and appraisal. Formal supervision had lapsed, and only two staff appraisals had taken place in the previous year. There were also some medicines recording errors. The overall rating was Good, but Effective was rated Requires Improvement. Safe, Caring, Responsive and Well-led were all rated Good.
Kind and respectful care
Inspectors saw staff supporting people patiently and respectfully. People and relatives spoke positively about the care.
“People were treated with dignity and respect.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans explained each person's needs, preferences and how staff should support them. Staff knew people's routines, personalities and communication methods.
“Each person had their own detailed care plan.” from the report
Good communication support
Staff helped people communicate in ways that suited them, including individual signs and other preferred methods.
“People were supported to communicate using their preferred methods.” from the report
Enough staff
Staffing levels were planned around people's needs and activities. Inspectors found staff had time to sit and talk with people.
“There were enough staff on duty to meet people's needs and staff had time to sit and talk with the people they were supporting.” from the report
Care planning and activities
People were involved in planning their support and could choose from activities inside and outside the home.
“People and their families were involved in the planning of their care and support.” from the report
Medicines records
needs fixingMedicines were given safely overall, but one administration was not signed for and there was an error in stock recording. The manager said extra checks would be introduced.
“We found that on one occasion staff had not signed to confirm they had administered medicines and one error with stock recording.” from the report
Staff supervision and appraisals
needs fixingStaff were not receiving regular formal supervision, which meant they did not always have support or feedback about their work. Only two appraisals had taken place in the previous 12 months.
“Formal supervision had lapsed and staff had not received support in their day to day practice.” from the report
No registered manager at the visit
minorThere was no registered manager in post when inspectors visited. A new manager had started shortly before the inspection and was expected to apply for registration.
“The home did not have a registered manager at the time of our inspection.” from the report
- 01How often do staff now receive formal supervision and appraisals?
- 02What checks are now used to make sure every medicine dose is signed for and stock records are accurate?
- 03Has the new manager become registered with CQC, and who is responsible for the home while that process is completed?
- 04Has the local authority stopped monitoring the improvement plan, and what actions remain?
- 05How are people and their relatives now asked for feedback about the quality of the service?
This was an unannounced inspection of all five key questions, using visits, discussions and records; the previous inspection was in November 2014. This explanation was written from the published report of 6 October 2016 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 Jasper Lodge
3 rated inspections over 4 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- April 2019Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- October 2016Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- February 2015Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- January 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- March 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 1 March 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
38 live-in carers within about an hour of Gloucestershire
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 £1,030 to £1,360 a week. 31 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“She was very caring, kind and patient to all his needs, she built up a wondetful rapport with him, she was dedicated and was there for him through good times as well as through the tough times”
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.