Skip to content
The Care Home DirectoryEvery care home in England

CQC report explained · a residential care home

What the CQC found at Jersey Road

Goodpublished 4 January 2019, 7 years ago

Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.

The five questions inspectors ask
Safe?
Requires improvement
Medicines records did not always match the stock held, and some medicines storage temperatures were too high without a recorded response. Fire doors had been wedged open, although the wedges were removed during the inspection.
Effective?
Good
Staff had training and supervision, understood how to support decision-making, and helped people access food, drink and healthcare.
Caring?
Good
People were treated with dignity, kindness and respect. Staff protected privacy, listened to people and supported contact with relatives.
Responsive?
Good
Care plans were personal, detailed and updated when people's needs changed. People were supported with activities they enjoyed and knew how to complain.
Well-led?
Good
The management team monitored the service, sought feedback and worked with health and social care professionals. Inspectors found a positive and person-centred culture.
The latest report, explained

What inspectors found, January 2019

Rated Good overall, but inspectors found medicines and fire safety needed improvement.

This was an announced inspection on 22 and 26 November 2018. One inspector spoke with people, staff and health and social care professionals, observed care, and checked care records, medicines records, staff files, rotas, audits and policies. This was the first inspection since the service registered.

Inspectors found kind and respectful care. People had person-centred care plans, were supported to make choices and were encouraged to be independent and active in the community. Staff were trained, worked with health professionals and provided enough support for people's assessed needs.

The home was rated Good overall. Effective, caring, responsive and well-led were rated Good. Safe was rated Requires Improvement because medicines records were not always accurate, medicines were sometimes stored above the recommended temperature, and fire safety procedures had not been followed.

What inspectors praised
  • Personalised support

    Care plans described people's individual histories, preferences and support needs. Staff supported people to make choices and build independence.

    “People were supported to make decisions, choices and to be as independent as possible.” from the report
  • Kind and respectful care

    People told inspectors that staff were kind and caring. Staff protected privacy and dignity and did not rush people.

    “People were treated with dignity, respect, kindness and compassion.” from the report
  • Support with health

    Staff noticed changes in people's health and worked with GPs, nurses and other professionals. People received support to attend appointments or to receive care at the home when needed.

    “People received effective, timely and responsive medical treatment when their health needs changed.” from the report
  • Good management

    The management team used audits, feedback and incident reviews to make changes. Staff said they felt supported.

    “The provider and the management team had good systems in place to monitor the quality of the service.” from the report
What inspectors were concerned about
  • Medicines records and storage

    serious

    Medicines delivered to the home were not always recorded accurately. Records did not always match the medicines in stock, and storage temperatures sometimes exceeded the maximum without action being recorded.

    “Medicines were not always well managed; records were not always accurate.” from the report
  • Fire doors

    serious

    Three fire doors had been held open with wedges, despite the fire policy saying automatic door closures were in operation. The wedges were removed and disposed of during the inspection.

    “Wedging doors open increases the risk of fire spreading quickly.” from the report
  • Lengthy staff shifts

    needs fixing

    Rotas showed that two staff members had worked a late shift directly followed by a 16.5-hour night shift. Inspectors advised the manager to seek guidance and refer to employment law.

    “The staffing rotas for a three week period showed that two staff members each worked a 16.5 hour night as they carried out a late shift directly followed by a night shift.” from the report
Questions to ask them, based on this report
  1. 01What new process was put in place for recording medicines received and carried forward?
  2. 02How are medicines kept below 25°C, and what action is recorded if storage temperatures rise?
  3. 03What changes have been made to ensure fire doors are not wedged open and that the correct door safety measures are in place?
  4. 04What was the outcome of the contractor's work on the ensuite water temperature?
  5. 05What changes have been made to prevent staff working a late shift directly followed by a 16.5-hour night shift?

This was an announced first inspection covering all five CQC questions and the overall quality and safety of the home. This explanation was written from the published report of 4 January 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.

The story over the years

Every inspection of Jersey Road

Each visit the CQC has published, newest first, back to the day the home was registered.

  1. January 2019Goodcurrent rating
    Safe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good

    Read what inspectors found at Jersey Road →

  2. November 2017

    Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 27 November 2017.

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.

Next steps

Weigh the report against the rest

Care at home

91 live-in carers within about an hour of Medway

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 £1,250 a week. 78 can care for a couple. 10 years' experience on average.

“Usha rapidly became 'one of the family' and is sorely missed.”
Claire T., about Usha V.
“Always on time and with a lovely smile for my mum. Theresa is kind and sensitive to my mum's needs.”
Anthea D., about Theresa L.
See live-in carers near MedwayProfiles, rates and reviews are free to look at.

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.