OSJCT Gregory 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 remained to Good. This meant people’s outcomes were consistently good, and people’s feedback confirmed this.

This service scored 75 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

The provider always made sure people’s care and treatment was effective by thoroughly assessing and reviewing their health, care, wellbeing and communication needs with them.

The provider ensured people’s care and treatment was consistently effective through robust, holistic assessment and review processes which were clearly embedded in practice. People were placed firmly at the centre from the outset and recognised as experts in their own needs, resulting in highly personalised and responsive care.

Care plans, held on an electronic system, were exceptionally well structured, detailed and easy to navigate. Each included a concise but comprehensive ‘critical information’ front sheet, giving staff immediate access to key information such as life history, important relationships, preferences, diet, medical conditions and functional abilities. Risks were clearly identified, analysed and prominently recorded, including specific high-risk indicators such as anticoagulant therapy, ensuring staff had a strong understanding of how to deliver safe, informed care at all times.

There was compelling evidence that care planning translated consistently into practice. Records described people’s preferences and daily routines in detail, and these were reflected in what was observed. For example, one person’s care plan highlighted their interest in puzzles and knitting, both of which were available and being used during the site visit. The person was also observed mobilising with a walking frame in line with guidance in their care plan, demonstrating that staff followed risk management strategies precisely while supporting independence.

This strong alignment between assessment, planning and delivery provided clear assurance that care was safe, effective and consistently delivered as intended. It reduced the risk of unmet need or deterioration while promoting positive outcomes, independence and wellbeing. People experienced seamless, well-coordinated care from the outset and could be confident that staff understood and responded to their needs. This reflected a highly embedded, proactive culture where effective care and risk management were fully integrated into day-to-day practice.

The provider planned and delivered people’s care and treatment with them, including what was important and mattered to them. They did this in line with legislation and current evidence-based good practice and standards.

People’s needs were assessed using nationally recognised, evidence-based tools, including the Waterlow risk assessment for pressure damage and the Malnutrition Universal Screening Tool (MUST) for nutrition. These tools were used effectively and consistently to ensure people’s risks were accurately identified. Staff followed the associated guidance to deliver care in line with best practice.

Where risks were identified, appropriate and timely interventions were put in place to reduce potential harm. For example, people assessed as being at risk of skin breakdown were provided with specialist equipment, such as pressure-relieving mattresses, and were supported with regular repositioning.

This approach ensured care and treatment were delivered in line with current evidence-based guidance and resulted in improved outcomes for people, reducing the risk of avoidable harm.

The provider worked well across teams and services to support people. They made sure people only needed to tell their story once by sharing their assessment of needs when people moved between different services.

People’s health needs were supported through effective partnership working with external health professionals. Staff recognised when additional or specialist input was required and made timely referrals to ensure appropriate support was in place.

Staff worked proactively with health professionals to monitor people’s wellbeing and respond to changing needs. Records showed clear timelines of referrals, outcomes and any actions taken, supporting a coordinated and consistent approach to care.

People had up-to-date assessments and key information in place, which were shared with other services, such as during hospital admissions, to promote safe and effective care. These reflected people’s individual needs, preferences and wishes, supporting a person-centred approach and positive outcomes.

The provider supported people to manage their health and wellbeing to maximise their independence, choice and control. Staff supported people to live healthier lives and where possible, reduce their future needs for care and support.

People told us staff supported them to manage their health needs effectively. One person said, “I’ve had a few visits from the optician, staff change my hearing aid batteries, and I see the chiropodist regularly.”

Records we reviewed showed people had regular access to primary healthcare services, including routine GP reviews. The GP practice nurse visited the service fortnightly to support people with their ongoing health needs.

This demonstrated a proactive and coordinated approach to managing people’s health conditions, helping to ensure they received timely and consistent care.

The provider routinely monitored people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it. They ensured that outcomes were positive and consistent, and that they met both clinical expectations and the expectations of people themselves.

People and their relatives told us they were satisfied with how staff monitored care and worked alongside them to achieve positive outcomes.

Care records showed evidence of regular involvement from health professionals and how people’s ongoing health needs were managed. There were clear timelines documenting when health professionals had been consulted, the advice provided and the outcomes for people.

This included the effective management of long-term conditions, such as diabetes, and timely responses where there were concerns about skin integrity. This supported a proactive and coordinated approach to care.

The provider told people about their rights around consent and respected these when delivering person-centred care and treatment.

People told us staff consistently sought their consent before providing care and respected their choices. During our observations, staff interacted with people respectfully, checking they were comfortable and happy to receive support before proceeding.

Care records showed people’s preferences and decisions were documented and respected, supporting a person-centred approach to care.

Where people lacked capacity to make specific decisions, the provider acted in line with the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). People were supported to make their own decisions wherever possible. When this was not achievable, decisions were made in their best interests and in the least restrictive way, with involvement from relatives, advocates, and relevant professionals.