Jaden House

On this page

• Overview
• Assessing needs
• Delivering evidence-based care and treatment
• How staff, teams and services work together
• Supporting people to live healthier lives
• Monitoring and improving outcomes
• Consent to care and treatment

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 good. At this assessment the rating has changed to requires improvement. This meant the effectiveness of people’s

care, treatment and support did not always achieve good outcomes or was inconsistent.

The provider was in breach of the legal regulation in relation to safeguarding and peoples consent to care and treatment.

This service scored 58 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

People were at risk of not receiving effective care or treatment because formal systems to assess people’s needs were not always being undertaken. Reviews did not demonstrate how the person or their family member had been involved in decisions about their care needs.

A family member confirmed they had not been involved in formal reviews however, they did feel able to discuss any changes in needs with the registered manager or staff.

Systems in place did not always ensure that peoples care, and treatment was planned and delivered with consideration of what was important and mattered to them. Best practice was not always followed in line with guidance around principles of stopping the over-medication of people with a learning disability (STOMP). Where medications for people’s anxiety or frustration were prescribed as needed, protocols did not outline how these could be used less frequently.

Not all principles of Right Support, Right Care, Right Culture were followed – promoting independence, dignity and respect for people with a learning disability and autistic people. Although the home was a usual residential home with good access to the community, and people had jobs, the home had restrictions which were not proportionate to manage risk. People did not have goals and aims or support to develop life skills.

There were systems and procedures in place that supported staff and others involved in the provision of care for people to work well together. Staff told us they received a handover at the start of each shift meaning they knew any important information or changes about people’s care needs. People had hospital passports to provide information should they be admitted. Though there was little information about other healthcare services involved in people’s care, people were largely independent in accessing these.

Staff supported people to live healthier lives. A person’s care plan detailed their health diagnosis and how this may affect them. A family member did not raise any concerns in respect of how their loved one’s health needs were met.

The provider monitored people’s care and treatment. They ensured they met the expectations of people and family members. There was a consistent care staff team who knew people well. This meant they would be able to identify changes in people’s presentation indicating a new health or care need.

The service did not tell people about their rights around consent and did not always respect their rights when delivering care and treatment. Whilst most people were able to leave the service on their own and had the capacity to understand and agree to their care or medication, one person did not.

The registered manager told us, and records confirmed, that a person’s capacity to consent to their living arrangements had not been assessed, and where the registered manager doubted the person’s capacity, a deprivation of liberties safeguard (DoLs) referral had not been made to the local authority.

Decision-specific mental capacity assessments did not evidence how decisions were made in the person’s best interest. We found some restrictions affecting everyone living at the service were in place. The registered manager could not explain why these were in place. This meant that people may be subject to undue restrictions that had not been appropriately assessed or agreed.