CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Jude House
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People were protected from abuse and avoidable harm. Inspectors found enough staff, safe recruitment, safe medicines systems and good infection control.
- Effective?
- Good
- Staff had relevant training, supervision and support. People's health, nutrition, appointments and consent were managed well, although formal staff appraisals had not been completed.
- Caring?
- Good
- People said staff were kind and respectful. Staff supported people's privacy, dignity, independence, choices and preferred routines.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care was personalised and plans were reviewed when needs changed. People were supported with communication, family relationships, activities and complaints.
- Well-led?
- Good
- People, relatives and staff were positive about management. Audits were carried out, feedback was used and the provider worked with health and social care professionals.
What inspectors found, January 2024
Jude House is rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with staff appraisals needing to resume.
The inspection was unannounced and took place on 13 December 2023. One inspector spoke with people living there, a relative, staff and managers. They reviewed care records, staff files, medicines, medicines records, quality checks and the home environment.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. People and relatives said they were happy with the care. Inspectors found people were protected from harm, received their medicines, and had enough suitably recruited staff.
Inspectors found that staff knew people well and supported their choices, independence, health and relationships. Care plans were reviewed and updated. The home had systems to check quality and act on problems.
Staff had not received formal appraisals to review their performance. The provider said appraisals would resume and had made an action plan. This did not change the Good rating.
People feel safe
People told inspectors they felt safe. Staff understood how to recognise and report abuse, and risk assessments guided safe support.
“I feel safe because they're here. They help me with cleaning my room and my personal care.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
People were supported by a regular staff team who knew them well. Inspectors found that privacy, dignity, equality and independence were respected.
“Everyone here is kind and they genuinely care.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans included people's routines, preferences, interests and communication needs. Staff supported people to make choices and maintain relationships.
“I know all the [staff] and they know me well and what works for me” from the report
Good health support
Staff helped people attend health appointments and followed advice from health professionals. People were also supported with food, drink and healthy living.
“[Staff] organise visits to see my GP or trips to the hospital.” from the report
Strong management checks
The provider carried out audits covering care plans, medicines, staff training, premises and health and safety. Identified shortfalls were reviewed and resolved.
“Shortfalls identified were reviewed and resolved.” from the report
Staff appraisals
needs fixingStaff had not received formal appraisals to review their performance. The provider said these would resume and had an action plan.
“Staff had not received formal appraisals to review their performance and for staff to evaluate how well they considered themselves to be working.” from the report
Records and refurbishment changes
minorThe provider had started moving from paper records to electronic records and had plans to refurbish the home. Families may want to ask about progress and how records remain accurate during the change.
“The provider had started to upgrade their IT systems.” from the report
- 01Have formal staff appraisals resumed, and how are staff performance and development now reviewed?
- 02How far has the move from paper care records to electronic records progressed?
- 03What refurbishment work is planned, and when will it take place?
- 04How will you make sure care plans remain up to date when people's needs change?
- 05How are people's views and relatives' feedback used to change care?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five CQC questions, including the care provided and the care home premises. This explanation was written from the published report of 25 January 2024 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 2018
Jude House was rated Good; inspectors found kind, personalised care, with some records and safety improvements needed.
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection on 28 February 2018. One inspector reviewed care records, staff records, audits and policies. They spoke with all four people living there, staff, management and relatives.
The home remained Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. People said they felt safe and were treated well. Inspectors found personalised care plans, suitable staff training, safe medicines systems and support for people's independence and healthcare.
Inspectors also found some smaller shortfalls. These included missing medicines competency records, no personal emergency evacuation plans at the time of the visit, gaps in daily cleaning records and incomplete details in one complaints record. The home said it would address these points, and some actions had been completed after the inspection.
Kind and respectful care
People said staff treated them well. Inspectors saw positive engagement and found that staff respected people's dignity, privacy, choices and differences.
“People told us that staff treated them well.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans included people's preferences, needs and goals. They were reviewed regularly and updated when people's needs changed.
“People's care plans reflected people's individual preferences and needs.” from the report
Support for independence
People were encouraged to manage everyday tasks, attend appointments and use community facilities as independently as possible.
“People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives” from the report
Staff training and support
Staff received induction, relevant training, supervision and appraisals. They said management was available for advice and support.
“Staff were appropriately recruited, trained and supported to provide people with individualised care and support.” from the report
Good management oversight
The home had a registered manager, an on-call system and checks covering medicines, health and safety and the environment.
“There were systems in place to regularly assess, monitor and improve the quality of the services provided for people.” from the report
Medicines cabinet
needs fixingThe medicines cabinet was locked and fixed to the wall, but it was not made of metal. Management said it would look into buying a more suitable cabinet.
“People's medicines were stored in a locked cabinet that was fixed to the wall but was not made of metal.” from the report
Missing medicines competency records
needs fixingStaff described a detailed competency assessment process, but completed records were not available. Management said these would be completed in future.
“completed records of medicines competency assessments were not available.” from the report
Emergency evacuation plans
needs fixingAt the inspection, people did not have individual plans explaining the support they would need in some emergencies. The home later said these plans had been completed.
“people did not have a specific personal emergency evacuation plan [PEEP]” from the report
Fire safety door
needs fixingA lounge door had been propped open, which could have created a risk during a fire. The home later bought a device intended to keep doors open safely.
“The lounge door was propped open which could be unsafe in the event of a fire.” from the report
Cleaning records
minorSome daily cleaning and task records were incomplete. The home said additional monitoring checks had started.
“However, there were some gaps in these records.” from the report
Complaint documentation
minorA complaint had been acted on, but the record did not include all the action taken by management. Management said this would be documented more clearly in future.
“the complaints record did not include details of the action taken by management staff.” from the report
- 01Have the more suitable metal medicines cabinet and completed medicines competency records been put in place and checked?
- 02Are personal emergency evacuation plans now up to date for every person living in the home?
- 03How are daily cleaning tasks and record checks monitored now?
- 04How are complaints and the management action taken recorded and reviewed?
- 05What support is available for people to take part in activities and maintain their independence in the community?
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection covering all five CQC questions, and all five ratings remained Good. This explanation was written from the published report of 14 April 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 Jude House
3 rated inspections over 8 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- January 2024Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- April 2018Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- March 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- July 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- October 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- February 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- May 2012
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 16 May 2012.
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 Brent
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 £1,260 a week. 74 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
“The quality of life that she's given my parents has been priceless. The peace of mind she's given my sisters and I, through a very difficult time, has been invaluable.”
“I can truly say that Peter always put Dad at the centre of everything and I know that they found a great friendship in difficult 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.