CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Jubilee House
Rated Outstanding: inspectors found the home performing exceptionally well.
What inspectors found, March 2020
Rated Outstanding overall; inspectors found exceptionally caring, responsive and well-led support, with safe and effective care rated Good.
This was an unannounced inspection on 5 February 2020 by three inspectors. They observed care, spoke with people, relatives, staff and health professionals, and checked care records, staff files, training, audits and other management records.
The home supported 35 people, although it could provide care for up to 48. Inspectors found that people were safe, received effective care and were treated with exceptional kindness, dignity and respect.
Care was strongly tailored to people's lives, interests, choices and end-of-life wishes. Inspectors also found exceptional leadership, good teamwork and systems that were used to improve the service.
The overall rating was Outstanding. Safe and Effective were rated Good. Caring, Responsive and Well-led were rated Outstanding. This was an improvement from Good overall at the previous inspection, published on 8 September 2017.
Kind and individual care
Staff took time to understand people's histories, preferences and small daily needs. Relatives said the care was compassionate and respectful.
“Staff took time to get to know people and listening and understanding their wants, needs and wishes.” from the report
Personalised activities
Activities were based on people's interests and included trips, community activities and specially arranged experiences.
“Activities were tailored to people's individual needs and wishes.” from the report
End-of-life support
Inspectors found exceptional support for people and families near the end of life. Staff considered cultural beliefs and personal wishes.
“Staff provided extraordinary care to people and their relatives leading up to the persons death.” from the report
Strong leadership
The management team was visible, approachable and focused on people's wellbeing. Staff, relatives and health professionals spoke positively about the leadership.
“The service was consistently managed and well-led.” from the report
Good health and nutrition support
Staff worked with health professionals and responded to nutrition, hydration and other clinical needs. People were offered choices and support with meals.
“Staff worked well with health care professionals to provide the most effective care.” from the report
Garden maintenance
minorThe garden needed work. A gardener had been contracted to carry this out, according to the report.
“The fire drills had taken place and a gardener had been contracted to carry out work to the garden.” from the report
- 01How would you meet my relative's particular nursing and dementia needs?
- 02How do you involve families in decisions about care and keep them updated about health concerns or incidents?
- 03How do you support people who cannot communicate verbally, including with choices about food, activities and daily routines?
- 04What activities and community links could be arranged around my relative's interests and cultural or religious needs?
- 05What checks are now in place to make sure fire drills and garden maintenance are recorded and followed up?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five CQC questions, the premises and the care provided; the previous overall rating was Good. This explanation was written from the published report of 21 March 2020 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, September 2017
Rated Good overall, with Outstanding caring; inspectors found safe, effective and personalised care, and major improvements since the previous inspection.
This was an unannounced inspection on 7 June 2017. Inspectors spoke with 17 people living at the home, five relatives, 12 staff, the manager and two health professionals. They observed care and mealtimes and checked care plans, medicines records, staff files, rotas and accident records.
The home was rated Good overall. It was rated Good for Safe, Effective, Responsive and Well-led. Caring was rated Outstanding. Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicine systems, suitable training, good support with food and drink, personalised care plans and meaningful activities.
The previous inspection in April 2016 rated the service Requires Improvement and made four recommendations. This inspection found that the provider had completed the promised actions and continued to improve the service. Inspectors said the home was well-led and that end of life care was exceptional.
Kind and respectful care
Staff took time to speak with people, ask permission and protect their privacy. Inspectors saw warmth, laughter and personal attention throughout the day.
“We observed excellent interaction between people and staff who consistently took time to ask permission before assisting them.” from the report
End of life support
People's final wishes were discussed sensitively and recorded in detailed plans. Staff worked with families and other organisations to help people remain comfortable and surrounded by people who mattered to them.
“There were excellent systems in place to ensure end of life care was always provided to the highest standard.” from the report
Personalised care
Staff knew people's histories, preferences and routines. Life story books, memory boxes and individual care plans helped staff provide care that suited each person.
“Staff had an exceptional level of knowledge about people and what good care looked like for each person.” from the report
Safe staffing and medicines
Staffing levels had improved since the previous inspection and were sufficient during this visit. Medicines were administered by qualified nurses and checked through regular audits.
“At this inspection, we found that the provider had taken the action they told us they had and as such staffing levels were now sufficient to support people safely and effectively.” from the report
Meaningful activities
People could choose from group and one-to-one activities, with no pressure to join in. Activities reflected people's interests and supported emotional wellbeing.
“The service placed a strong emphasis on meeting people's emotional well-being through the provision of meaningful social activities and opportunities.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How are staffing levels reviewed when people's needs change, and how often are agency staff used now?
- 02How will you make sure my relative's care plan continues to reflect their preferences, routines and changing needs?
- 03What activities and one-to-one support would be available for my relative, including if they do not want to join group activities?
- 04How would you involve our family in discussing and recording end of life wishes?
- 05How can relatives raise concerns, and how quickly would we receive a response?
This was an unannounced comprehensive re-inspection covering all five quality areas and checking whether earlier improvements had been made. This explanation was written from the published report of 8 September 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 Jubilee House
4 rated inspections over 5 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Outstanding.
- March 2020Outstandingcurrent ratingup from GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: OutstandingResponsive: OutstandingWell-led: Outstanding
- September 2017Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: OutstandingResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- June 2016Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- May 2015Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- December 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- September 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.
- August 2011
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
77 live-in carers within about an hour of Surrey
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. 66 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
“Without his support we wouldn't have been able to navigate bringing and keeping Dad at home.”
“Not only has she looked after him beautifully, she has also been great company for him with lively conversation, kindness and humour.”
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.