Rated Care Homes

Jackman's Lodge

G

Good

Rated on

Rating from the Care Quality Commission.

At a glance

  • 2 ratings

    Rated Good at every inspection since 2019.

  • 2 months

    since the latest rating was published.

  • 234 of 302

    rated care homes in Surrey are rated Good, like this one.

Jackman's Lodge: inspection record

Care home, 30 beds, Surrey

Rated Good in August 2026.

Jackman's Lodge: inspection record: inspection ratings by year, 2015 to 2026
201520162017201820192020202120222023202420252026
Overall
Safe
Effective
Caring
Responsive
Well-led

Ratings published by the Care Quality Commission.

Compare nearby

  1. –
    Emily Lodge Short Breaks Service Not yet rated, 0.5 miles away
  2. G
    Greys Residential Home Good, 0.6 miles away
  3. G
    The Ranch Good, 0.8 miles away
  4. RI
    Beech Trees Requires improvement, 0.9 miles away
  5. –
    Weystone Manor Not yet rated, 1 mile away

See all care homes in Surrey

See all care homes in Horsell

What inspectors found

From the Care Quality Commission's assessment published 20 August 2026 (assessment visit 3 August 2026). Quoted under the Open Government Licence.

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.

  • Safe Good
  • Effective Good
  • Caring Good
  • Responsive Good
  • Well-led Good
Read the rest of CQC's summary
  1. Safe

    Good

    Safe – this means we looked for evidence that people were protected from abuse and avoidable harm. At our last assessment we rated this key question as good. At this assessment the rating has remained as good. This meant people were safe and protected from avoidable harm.

  2. Effective

    Good

    Effective – this means we looked for evidence that people’s care, treatment and support achieved good outcomes and promoted a good quality of life, based on best available evidence. At our last assessment we rated this key question as good. At this assessment the rating has remained as good. This meant people’s outcomes were consistently good, and people’s feedback confirmed this.

  3. Caring

    Good

    Caring – this means we looked for evidence that the provider involved people and treated them with compassion, kindness, dignity and respect. At our last assessment we rated this key question as good. At this assessment the rating has remained a good. This meant people were supported and treated with dignity and respect and involved as partners in their care.

  4. Responsive

    Good

    Responsive – this means we looked for evidence that the provider met people’s needs. At our last assessment we rated this key question as good. At this assessment the rating has remained as good. This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

  5. Well-led

    Good

    Well-led – this means we looked for evidence that service leadership, management and governance assured high-quality, person-centred care; supported learning and innovation; and promoted an open, fair culture. At our last assessment we rated this key question as good. At this assessment the rating has remained as good. This meant the service was consistently managed and well-led. Leaders and the culture they created promoted high-quality, person-centred care.

Questions to ask when you visit

  1. Ask to see the most recent Care Quality Commission (CQC) report and what the home did about any points in it.
  2. Visit at different times of day, including a mealtime.

Registration details

Registered manager
Karen Baker
Registered with the CQC since
What it provides
Care home service without nursing
Who it supports
Dementia, Older People, Physical Disability, Younger Adults

Inspection report

Read the full inspection report (opens the Care Quality Commission website)

1 inspection report, latest 30 August 2019. Latest assessment published 20 August 2026; the Care Quality Commission's newer assessments are published on its website rather than as reports.

The rating is the Care Quality Commission's. We show it as published and do not change it.

Who runs it

Ownership type
Organisation
Companies House number
07483703 (opens Companies House)

Getting help from Surrey County Council

The council can assess what care someone needs and tell them what help with the cost they may get.

Checked on the council's website, November 2026.

Common questions

Does Jackman's Lodge provide nursing care?
No. The Care Quality Commission lists Jackman's Lodge as a care home without nursing.
How many beds does Jackman's Lodge have?
The Care Quality Commission's register lists 30 beds at Jackman's Lodge.
When was Jackman's Lodge last inspected?
The Care Quality Commission's latest rating for Jackman's Lodge was published on 20 August 2026.
Who runs Jackman's Lodge?
Jackman's Lodge is run by Jackman's Lodge Ltd.
What is Jackman's Lodge's CQC rating?
Its overall rating from the Care Quality Commission is Good, published on 20 August 2026.

Contact

Phone
01483 761779
Address
The Mount, St. Johns Hill Road, Woking, GU21 7RG Map (opens Google Maps)
Read the full inspection report (opens the Care Quality Commission website)

Compare nearby

  1. –
    Emily Lodge Short Breaks Service Not yet rated, 0.5 miles away
  2. G
    Greys Residential Home Good, 0.6 miles away
  3. G
    The Ranch Good, 0.8 miles away
  4. RI
    Beech Trees Requires improvement, 0.9 miles away
  5. –
    Weystone Manor Not yet rated, 1 mile away

See all care homes in Surrey

See all care homes in Horsell