You are here

Inspection Summary

Overall summary & rating


Updated 8 September 2016

Jayden House provides personal care and domestic support to people who live in their own homes.

The service has a registered manager, although they were not available at the time of the inspection. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are ‘registered persons’. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

The inspection was undertaken over a three day period, 10, 15 and 17 August 2016 and included visits to the office, staff interviews and visits and telephone calls to people in their own home. At the time of this inspection 128 people were using the service.

This was the first inspection of this service since it registered with the Care Quality Commission, (CQC).

The majority of people we spoke with said the service was well managed. One person said, “They deal with everything I ask them to” and another said, “I can’t find fault at all.” Any reservations people had related to the changes made to the care staff rotas, although two people said they had a delay in obtaining a response from the office staff, and didn’t always feel listened to. The registered provider was aware of these issues and was taking practical steps to resolve these and improve the service. They had invested in a new electronic monitoring system; provided staff with smart phones to enable them to access their rotas electronically; provided satellite navigations systems for staff; purchased pool cars for those staff who did not have their own car; paid for staff to take their driving test and provided a fuel card so staff did not have to purchase fuel themselves. The registered provider was confident these changes, along with creating geographical staff teams and strengthening the management structure, would ensure people received a more consistent service.

All of the 16 people and five relatives we spoke with told us the staff provided safe care and support. One person said, “I don’t have any qualms about that. I always feel safe.” Five people told us that sometimes their carers arrived late and two people told us they had occasionally had a missed visit. All said they were usually informed by telephone if the carer was running late. However, one person and one relative said staff had been very late and they had not been notified. One said the staff had been so late they had put themselves to bed, which was a risk to them, and the relative said their relation had become very distressed.

Some people told us they felt there were not enough staff to meet the service’s obligations to people, as they had experienced late visits or had their staff changed at short notice. Eight people were concerned about the number of changes made to their planned staff rota. One person said, “We very rarely have the same staff” and another said they were not sure who was coming to them until they arrived. We discussed this with the registered provider. They said there had been a period when the service needed to recruit more staff and this, along with the changes made to the staff teams, had resulted in periods of change for people. They were confident this would all now be resolved.

Staff recruitment practices were safe and relevant checks had been completed. All four files we saw included the necessary pre-employment checks, including proof of identify, previous employment references and a disclosure and barring service (police) check. Staff had received training in safeguarding adults and knew how to recognise signs of potential abuse. They understood how to report any concerns in line with the service’s safeguarding policy. One member of staff said the service was very good at looking after people’s welfare: they said, “We keep an eye on people, make sure they are safe.”

Risks to people’s health and safety had been assessed and regularly reviewed. These assessments included information and guidance from health care specialists about how to minimise the chance of harm occurring to people and staff. The service supported some people to take their medicines. The care plans provided information about each person’s medicines and why they were prescribed. People told us the staff supported them safely and they received their medicines as prescribed.

People spoke positively about the care staff, describing them as “good” or “very good”. Each person we spoke with told us the staff were respectful, kind and caring. One couple told us, “We are so happy with the people who are looking after us. They show us every care and enormous respect for us and our home.” People told us staff did ‘little extras’ for them, such as hanging out washing and bringing milk and newspapers. One person said, “They always bring me the paper at the weekends so I can follow the football.” The service had received 23 compliments since January this year from people and their relatives. These thanked the staff for their care and kindness.

Staff told us they enjoyed their work and received a great deal of personal satisfaction from caring for people. One staff member said, “I thoroughly enjoy it. It’s so rewarding making a difference to people’s lives, many of whom only see their carers.”

Care plans were developed with each person and people told us they had received a copy. These plans described the support the person needed to manage their day to day needs. Staff knew people well, and were able to tell us how they supported them. Staff recorded the care they provided at each visit and we saw these records were detailed and clearly written. The service was flexible and responsive to changes in people’s needs. One person told us, “This company are the best we have ever had. They will accommodate changes we request in relation to the times of visits, especially at the weekends.”

All but one of the people and relatives we spoke with said they felt able to raise a complaint with the service: some told us they had done so this year. They said they had been listened to and appropriate action had been taken to deal with the issue. The service had received six complaints since January 2016 and records of the action taken to investigate each complaint and how the matter had been resolved were maintained.

The service periodically reviewed the quality of the service people were receiving. People told us they had received questionnaires and telephone calls from the office staff asking them if they were happy with the care and support they received. The results of the most recently sent questionnaires in February 2016 showed a high level of satisfaction with the service. Monthly audits and unannounced checks on staff performance were also carried out to monitor the quality of the service.

Inspection areas



Updated 8 September 2016

The service was safe.

People told us they felt safe when they received care.

Risk assessments had been undertaken and included information about action to be taken to minimise the chance of harm occurring to people and staff. People said staff followed this guidance and information.

Where the service assisted people with their medicines, this was done safely.

Safe staff recruitment procedures were in place. This helped reduce the risk of the provider employing a person unsuitable to work with people who require care and support.

Staff were provided with gloves and aprons to reduce the risk of cross infection.



Updated 8 September 2016

The service was effective.

The service was reviewing its rota planning to ensure people received support from a consistent team of staff.

Staff knew people well and were able to tell us how they supported people. People said staff were competent and had the necessary skills to meet their needs.

Staff completed training and had the opportunity to discuss their practice.

People were supported to receive health care services.

Staff had a good awareness of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA).



Updated 8 September 2016

The service was caring.

People and their relatives were positive about the way staff treated them. Staff were kind and compassionate.

People were involved in making decisions about how they received care.

People’s privacy and dignity was respected.



Updated 8 September 2016

The service was responsive.

Care plans described the support people needed and wanted to manage their day to day needs.

The service was flexible and responsive to changes in people’s needs.

People felt confident they could raise concerns and these would be listened to.



Updated 8 September 2016

The service was well-led.

The registered provider was committed to improving the service people received. They had taken practical steps to improve rota planning and consistency.

Staff enjoyed their work and told us the management were always available for guidance and support.

There were systems in place to assess and improve the quality of care. Tus included monitoring late visits and missed calls to identify how these came about. The service encouraged feedback and used this to drive improvements.

Records were well maintained and accessible to staff.