- Care home
Jackman's Lodge
Assessment report published 20 August 2026
Contents
Ratings
Our view of the service
About the service
The service is a residential care home registered to provide care for up to 30 people. There were 28 people using the service at the time of the inspection, some of whom were living with dementia.
Who the service is for
The service supports older people and people living with dementia and/or physical disabilities.
Key findings
We carried out this assessment on 7 August 2026. This service was previously rated as good. We carried out this assessment to confirm whether the rating of good remains accurate. This report does not provide detailed information on areas where we found practice continues to meet a good standard. Instead, our findings focus on any areas where the service needs to improve or where we found exceptional practice.
People can only be deprived of their liberty to receive care and treatment with appropriate legal authority. In care homes, this can be done through a procedure called the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS), which is part of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). We checked whether the service was working within the principles of the MCA and how they managed DoLS within the service. We found that staff and management worked within the MCA and understood their responsibilities. DoLS authorisations were appropriately applied for and overseen.
We found people were not subjected to unlawful or excessive restrictions. They had choice, control and freedom over their lives as much as possible. One person told us, “They do respect me.” A relative said, “Mum’s always free to choose what she wants to do. It feels like mum’s happy.” A member of staff said, “We always assume that they have capacity. If they have proved they don’t that doesn’t mean they’ll definitely need a DoLS, with the new legislation. We were given handouts about this during handover.”
People were supported by enough staff with the relevant skills and knowledge, and staff were recruited safely. Risks were assessed, regularly reviewed, and people were involved in the process. Care records were person-centred and included sufficient information for staff to keep people safe.
Staff understood how to recognise potential signs of abuse and how to report these appropriately. One member of staff told us, “Physical abuse like hitting, pushing [could result in] unexplained bruises. I’d raise it with my manager and if needed raise it with the locality team.”
There were systems in place to ensure the environment was effectively maintained and safe for people. Regular health and safety checks were undertaken by suitably qualified professionals, for example in relation to mobility equipment and fire safety.
People’s medicines were managed safely. Where we found minor areas of improvement, such as in relation to monitoring medicines refrigerator temperatures, there was no impact on people as there were no medicines which required refrigeration. Other areas of medicines were managed well, and the registered manager was responsive to our feedback and sent us evidence of how they had addressed this prior to the end of the assessment.
People’s needs were assessed before they moved into the service and regularly reviewed once they moved into the service. Assessments considered the person’s spiritual, social and healthcare needs. Staff used nationally recognised tools when reviewing people’s care, for example in relation to weight loss. They regularly reviewed these to identify potential concerns in line with national guidance.
Staff received training in line with national guidance and they worked well with healthcare professionals to monitor and improve people’s outcomes. One healthcare professional told us, “Throughout my involvement with Jackman’s Lodge, I have found both the Registered Manager, and the wider staff team to be very motivated and engaged.” Another healthcare professional said, “From the care staff to the housekeeping and cleaning team, everyone I have encountered has been friendly, professional, and genuinely attentive to residents' wellbeing.”
Staff told us the service was inclusive and leaders understood barriers people and staff faced. Leaders regularly completed staff supervisions to monitor performance and provide support, and staff told us they felt valued by the registered manager. One member of staff told us, “If you have not done your training the manager will not allow you to work. It’s one of the criteria for employment. In the supervision, they ask you on areas to improve on, which areas you’re doing well and not well.” Another member of staff said, “You’ve got the manager and normally you have two seniors on a shift and we communicate quite well and work together when we need.”
The registered manager regularly completed audits to monitor the quality of the service and make sustained improvements. For example, they worked with healthcare partners to introduce new technology to the service. The registered manager understood their legal responsibilities in relation to governance and to ensure people consistently had positive outcomes.
People's experience of this service
People and their relatives told us the service was safe and that risks associated with their care were managed safely. One person told us, “Yes, it’s safe.” A relative commented, “I truly believe that my relative is safe here.”
They told us there were sufficient appropriately skilled staff, that the environment was safe, and that people’s medicines were managed safely. A relative told us, “My relative is on quite a bit of medication, I think. The staff do all the medication and contacting GP.” Another relative commented, “There’s always staff around. I’ve never had to wait and we come at random times.”
People and their relatives told us staff monitored people’s health, escalated healthcare concerns appropriately with the relevant professionals, and staff kept them updated about the progress and any changes to treatment. One relative told us, “The staff do a great job keeping my relative hydrated and my relative has not had a urine infection since they have been here, which is really good.” Another relative said, “They organised the doctor for her eyes and when She had a little fall but they immediately got the ambulance out. They’re really great at letting us know.”
We observed interactions between staff, people and visitors and we found staff treated people in a kind and compassionate way and understood people’s preferences. Staff offered people choices and respected their decisions. Feedback from people and their relatives confirmed this. One person told us, “I do like it. They’re very nice and very caring.” A relative commented, “It took her a while to settle down but she’s settled and comfortable now. Staff made sure of that. They’re great and really friendly.”
People and their relatives told us they were involved in decisions relating to their care, that they had a choice of meals and snacks available, and that there were sufficient activities organised to keep them stimulated. One person told us, “The food’s nice and I’m content.” A relative told us, “[Person] needed respite care because of her falls at home. They (staff) came and assessed her in hospital. I feel very much involved. They’re fantastic, all of them are fantastic.”
People and their relatives told us the service was well-led and that there was a positive culture at the service. One person told us, “I’m very happy here.” A relative commented, “Overall, it’s just very homely and the communication is excellent.” Another relative said, “I am 100% confident in taking any issue that affects my relative to the [registered] manager. I feel that they would listen to me or my sibling and are aware of how my relative is all the time.”