CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Jordan Lodge
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People were protected from identified risks, safeguarding concerns were reported appropriately and there were enough suitably checked staff. Medicines were administered safely, and the home had effective systems for accidents, incidents and infection control.
- Effective?
- Good
- Care assessments reflected people's needs and choices. Staff received relevant training and supervision, people had suitable food and healthcare support, and staff worked with mental health and other health professionals.
- Caring?
- Good
- People said staff were kind and supportive. Inspectors found that people were involved in care planning, treated with dignity and encouraged to make choices and remain as independent as possible.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans were individual and person-centred. People's communication needs were recorded, and people knew how to complain or raise concerns.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The provider had improved its audits and acted on feedback and identified issues. The registered manager was leaving, but recruitment for a replacement was under way.
What inspectors found, May 2019
Rated Good; inspectors found caring, safe support and clear improvements since the previous inspection, although some building work was unfinished.
This was an unannounced inspection on 1 May 2019. One inspector spoke with five people living at the home, staff and health and social care professionals. They also reviewed care records, staff files, audits and other records.
The home supported up to 14 adults with long-term mental health needs. Seven people were living there during the inspection. People said they were happy, felt supported and had seen things improve over the previous year.
All five areas were rated Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. This means the inspectors found that legal requirements were met and that the home was providing consistently good care. The overall rating improved from Requires Improvement at the previous inspection.
Improved care planning
People who had not previously taken part in care planning were now involved. Their care and support plans had been reviewed and revised.
“At this inspection we found the concerns were resolved and the process of needs, risk assessment and care planning had been completely reviewed and revised and people were fully engaged in the process.” from the report
Staff know people well
The established staff team understood people's needs, preferences and risks. Inspectors found there were enough staff to meet people's needs.
“Staff knew people well as the resident and staff group at Jordan Lodge remained relatively unchanged.” from the report
Kind and respectful support
People said staff were kind and supportive. Inspectors saw staff respecting privacy, dignity, choices and independence.
“We saw throughout our inspection that staff were sensitive and discreet when supporting people, they respected people's choices and acted on their requests and decisions.” from the report
Better quality monitoring
The provider had introduced wider checks covering medicines, care records, risks, the environment and safety. Action plans were used when improvements were needed.
“Since the last inspection the provider has reviewed the quality assurance systems in place.” from the report
Refurbishment was not complete
minorSome building work remained unfinished. The conservatory was closed and needed complete refurbishment, and replacement doors were still due to be fitted.
“The programme to complete the works including the comprehensive refurbishment of the conservatory was arranged and should be completed soon.” from the report
Change in manager
minorThe registered manager told inspectors they were leaving. A new manager was being recruited and would then apply for registration with CQC.
“At the time of our inspection the registered manager told us they were leaving their post.” from the report
- 01When will the conservatory refurbishment be completed, and how are people affected while it is closed?
- 02When will the replacement doors be fitted?
- 03Who is managing the home while the registered manager leaves, and when is the new manager expected to apply for CQC registration?
- 04How will you continue involving my relative in reviewing their care and support plan?
- 05How are medicines staff competency assessments being introduced and checked?
This was an unannounced planned inspection covering all five CQC key questions, following up concerns found at the previous inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 30 May 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, June 2018
Jordan Lodge was rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found safe and personalised care, but concerns about the building, care planning and quality checks.
Inspectors visited the home without warning on 2 May 2018. They spoke with people, staff, relatives and health and social care professionals. They reviewed care files, staff records, medicines, training and the running of the home.
People were generally safe, received their medicines correctly and had access to trained staff, healthy food and healthcare. Staff were kind, respectful and supported people with individual activities and choices.
The building needed substantial repair and redecoration. Inspectors also found that some people who did not engage with care planning had plans focused mainly on basic needs. Quality checks had not identified or dealt with these issues quickly enough.
The overall rating changed from Good at the March 2017 inspection to Requires Improvement. Effective and Responsive were rated Good. Safe, Caring and Well-led were rated Requires Improvement.
Staffing and recruitment
Inspectors found enough staff to meet people's needs safely. Recruitment checks were completed before staff began supporting people.
“There were sufficient numbers of staff to support people in a safe and person-centred manner.” from the report
Medicines
Medicines were stored securely and given by trained staff. Records showed that staff followed the home's procedures.
“People received their medicines safely.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Staff treated people with dignity and respect. Relatives and professionals said staff were kind and welcoming.
“We saw that staff supported people in a kind and compassionate manner.” from the report
Building condition
seriousMany parts of the home were worn and needed repair and redecoration. Inspectors identified possible infection risks in a bathroom and concerns about the effect on people's mental well-being.
“There is also a risk to people of infection arising in one of the bathrooms where tiles were missing and mould was seen to be growing.” from the report
Care planning for some people
needs fixingSome people who did not want to take part in care planning had very limited plans. These mainly covered basic needs, which could restrict progress towards rehabilitation and recovery.
“Outcomes for people who did not choose to be involved in their care plan focussed on meeting just their basic needs such as shelter and food.” from the report
Quality checks
needs fixingAudits covered many areas but did not identify some important problems, including the building condition and limited care planning. Problems were not always dealt with quickly enough.
“These audits of the home were not always effective in identifying problems and ensuring change was implemented soon enough.” from the report
- 01What refurbishment and repair work has been completed since the inspection, including the bathroom tiles, mould, flooring, ceilings and chipped paint?
- 02How do you check that refurbishment work is completed promptly and that infection risks are dealt with?
- 03How do you support people who do not want to join care planning to express their views and set rehabilitation or recovery goals?
- 04What changes have you made to the quality assurance audits so that problems are identified and fixed sooner?
- 05Which staff training, including food hygiene, has been refreshed since the inspection?
This was an unannounced inspection of the overall service and all five key questions, including the care provided and the home environment. This explanation was written from the published report of 16 June 2018 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 Jordan Lodge
4 rated inspections over 4 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- May 2019Goodcurrent ratingup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- June 2018Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- June 2017Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- April 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- February 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- March 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 11 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 Croydon
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 £1,230 a week. 77 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”
“Terry has been of invaluable help to our family while working as a part-time live-in carer for our mother for approximately 6 months”
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.