Jubilee Mews

The following is CQC's published account of its assessment, published 8 April 2026. References to “we” mean CQC. It describes findings at that time.

Date of Assessment: 16 January to 23 February 2026. Jubilee Mews is a nursing home that provides care and support for up to 12 people who have mental health needs. The service is designed to provide rehabilitation services with the expectation people are enabled to move to less supported environments within 2 years. At the time of inspection, 11 people were using the service.

Since the last inspection the organisation has changed its name to Everyturn and there has been 1 change of registered manager. We completed this inspection as part of our routine programme, and because of the length of time since the last full inspection was completed.

People told us they felt safe and well supported, and staff understood their needs and how to manage risks effectively. Staff interactions were caring and respectful, and people described staff as kind, patient and helpful.

The provider, senior leadership team and managers demonstrated a strong focus on safety, quality and improvement. Routine service reviews were completed. Both senior managers and trustees took part in these reviews and completed listening exercises with people. The quality and safety team had a range of tools and audits in place, which helped staff understand risk and outcomes. The provider shared any learning across the wider organisation.

The senior management team actively reviewed how the service operated and had made changes when needed, particularly in relation to staff recruitment, training and the redesign of the electronic care record system. However, changes had not always been made in a timely manner. For example, the soundproofing in the staff office was ineffective and had been for some years and this meant staff could not freely discuss people’s support and treatment plans or private matters.

Over recent years people with more acute mental health needs have been admitted and therefore do not wholly fulfill the criteria for rehabilitation. We found staffing levels in the mornings and evenings were not always enough to safely meet the needs of this current client group. Although the provider was already reviewing staffing deployment, foreseeable risks, such as increases in self‑harm or aggression had not always triggered timely changes to staffing arrangements or lone‑working practices. The provider immediately addressed these issues.

Care remained person‑centred, with detailed assessments carried out before and during people’s stay. Staff said the new electronic record system helped them to record information clearly and consistently. Staff worked closely with health and social care professionals, who told us they found the team responsive, timely and collaborative. People were supported to develop skills they needed for independent living and felt confident staff would help them when needed.

CCTV cameras had been installed but were not operational. We found people were unclear about the status of internal CCTV cameras; some believed cameras were in use when they were not. Leaders agreed to address this immediately.

The environment was clean and well maintained. Medicines were managed safely, and staff had appropriate training and competency checks. Staff understood their responsibilities under the Mental Capacity Act and Mental Health Act, although some records required clearer evidence that staff recognised the differences between community treatment orders and conditional discharges. This was addressed promptly when raised.

Staff demonstrated a robust knowledge of how work with people who had complex mental health needs and were very skilled at delivering this support. The provider’s ‘people team’ had ensured a robust training programme was in place. They constantly evaluated its effectiveness; in terms of the impact, it had on how staff delivered the service; if it assisted staff to effectively support people to improve their mental health and whether it had assisted the organisation to embed the overriding cultural principles of ‘Here so no one struggles alone’.

The provider valued the diversity within the team. When a change in requirements for international workers had the potential to impact this, the senior management and Trustees proactively changed their minimum pay scales. The people’s director was actively engaged in discussions with the government about salary sacrifice schemes and measures which would make sure there was equitable access to benefits.