Skip to content
CQC ExplainedEvery inspection report, in plain English

CQC report explained · a residential care home, run by The Turning Point Project

Jaden House

33 Hammonds Lane, Totton, Southampton, SO40 3LF

Requires improvementpublished 28 July 2025, 13 months ago

Rated Requires improvement: inspectors found the service was not performing as well as it should and told it what to change.

The latest report, explained

What inspectors found, December 2023

Rated Inadequate and placed in special measures; inspectors found serious problems with safeguarding, medicines, person-centred care and management.

This was an unannounced focused inspection on 16 and 19 October 2023. Two inspectors spoke with four people, five staff and five professionals. They reviewed care plans, risk assessments, medicines records, staff files and management records.

The home was not always safe. Safeguarding concerns were not always reported or properly investigated. Risk information was unclear or out of date. Medicines records showed unexplained omissions and refusals. Recruitment checks and staff training were also incomplete.

People were not always given enough choice, independence or control. Some rules restricted access to medicines, communal areas and the front door. Care records lacked detail, and inspectors found examples of controlling communication and people not being involved in decisions.

The overall rating changed from Good at the previous inspection, published in 2017, to Inadequate. The inspection only assessed Safe and Well-led. The home is in special measures while improvements are monitored.

What inspectors praised
  • Infection control

    Inspectors found safe infection prevention practices, appropriate protective equipment and a cleaning schedule. Professionals said the home was always clean.

    People were protected from the risk of infection as staff were following safe infection prevention and control practices.from the report
  • Staffing levels

    The provider had enough staff on shift, according to staff and the report. People also said the staff team was consistent and knew them well.

    Staff told us they felt there were always enough staff on shift, and they all work together to cover the shift.from the report
  • Keyworker support

    People had regular meetings with keyworkers who knew them well. People said they felt able to raise concerns with staff, their keyworker and the manager.

    People had keyworkers who knew them well. they spent one day each week with their keyworker and had keyworker meetings.from the report
  • Medicines storage

    Although medicines were not always administered safely, inspectors found that they were stored safely and cabinet temperatures were monitored.

    Medicines were stored safely. For example, staff monitored the daily temperature of the medicines cabinetfrom the report
What inspectors were concerned about
  • Safeguarding failures

    serious

    Several incidents and allegations were not reported or properly investigated. In one case, a staff member continued to work one-to-one with a person after an allegation of abuse.

    People were not consistently safeguarded from abuse and avoidable harm.from the report
  • Medicine errors

    serious

    Medicine records contained unexplained entries and repeated refusals or destructions that were not reported promptly. Prescribers were not always informed.

    There were 7 occasions where red crosses were entered on one person's medicine administration record, with no explanation of what this meantfrom the report
  • Unclear risk information

    serious

    Risk assessments were sometimes unclear, out of date or not updated after incidents. Staff may not have had enough information to support people safely.

    People's risk assessments did not have enough information to guide staff on how to support people safely.from the report
  • Too little choice and independence

    needs fixing

    People who could manage their own medicines still had to receive them in the office. People were restricted from communal areas after 11pm and did not have their own front door key.

    People were not supported to have maximum choice and control of their livesfrom the report
  • Incomplete staff checks and training

    serious

    Several staff files lacked employment histories, interview records or identity checks. Some staff started before enhanced DBS checks were completed, and some essential training was missing.

    Some staff started work before having an enhanced DBS in place and there was no risk assessment on place.from the report
  • Weak management oversight

    serious

    Quality systems did not identify the problems found by inspectors. There was no effective action plan, and incidents were not properly reviewed for learning.

    The provider's quality assurance processes were not effective, and had not identified the concerns we found during the inspection.from the report
Questions to ask them, based on this report
  1. 01What action has been taken to report and investigate safeguarding incidents and allegations of abuse?
  2. 02How are medicine refusals, missing doses and destroyed medicines now recorded and reported to prescribers?
  3. 03Have all staff completed the required recruitment checks and essential training before working with people?
  4. 04How are risk assessments and care plans being updated after incidents and used to provide consistent support?
  5. 05How can people now choose where to receive medicines, access communal areas and enter their home independently?

This was a focused inspection of Safe and Well-led only; the other key question ratings were carried over from the previous inspection in 2017. This explanation was written from the published report of 23 December 2023 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.

The story over the years

Every inspection of Jaden House

3 rated inspections over 8 years: the service has slipped, from Good to Inadequate.

  1. December 2023Inadequatecurrent ratingdown from Good
    Safe: InadequateEffective: GoodCaring: OutstandingResponsive: GoodWell-led: Inadequate

    Read what inspectors found at Jaden House

  2. November 2017Goodstayed Good
    Safe: GoodWell-led: Good

    We are reading this report · the original is on cqc.org.uk

  3. July 2015Good
    Safe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  4. July 2014

    Report published without a new overall rating.

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  5. November 2013

    Report published without a new overall rating.

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  6. February 2013

    Report published without a new overall rating.

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  7. July 2012

    Report published without a new overall rating.

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  8. April 2011

    Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 4 April 2011.

Ratings and report dates from the Care Quality Commission. A service can also be visited without a new rating being published, so the timeline shows published inspections, not every contact the CQC has had with the service.

Another option

Or stay at home with a private carer

Many people who look at care homes end up staying at home with a carer who comes in for a few hours a day, or lives in. PrimeCarers introduces you to self-employed carers you choose yourself: interviewed, ID and DBS checked, from about £20 an hour or £1,120 a week live-in.

Nearby

Other care homes near Southampton

Farmhouse Care Home

Southampton, SO40 · 0.4 km
Good
ResidentialDementia
Rated 4 years agocare home

The Poplars

Southampton, SO40 · 1.3 km
Good
Residential
Rated 7 years agocare home

23 Valley Road

Southampton, SO40 · 1.7 km
Good
Residential
Rated 4 years agocare home