Jacobs Neurological Centre

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

Detailed assessments were completed before people moved to the service. A relative told us, “The referral process was well done, the communication was good and effective. The admission went smoothly”.

People’s needs were consistently reviewed. We saw that care plans were detailed, personalised and up to date. Recognised tools were used to assess people’s level of risk in relation to aspects of their health such as Waterlow, for skin integrity, and MUST, for nutrition.

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 were in receipt of care which was individualised to their care and support needs and considered their preferences. One person told us, “Staff understand what I need 100%. They know me very well and know exactly what I need.”

Care plans included information about how to ensure people received the right care and treatment. Visual displays within each person’s room gave insight into their likes, dislikes and preferences.

The provider had a system in place to ensure policies and guidance were kept up to date and shared with staff.

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 benefited from having a range of in-house services such as a dietitian, physical therapists, tissue viability nurse along with external health services such as the GP. One relative told us, “I feel the care provided is joined up and there is reasonable communication between [the service] and external health professionals.”

We saw that advice, guidance and direction from all partners was included in the records we reviewed.

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 had access to a wide range of health services. A relative told us, “They (relative) have access to everything [they] need here. [Relative’s name] goes to the gym and has physio, there are also music sessions available.”

Staff knew how to monitor and respond to any changes in people’s health.

People were encouraged to be involved in their care as much as they were able and wanted to. Staff encouraged people to do things for themselves and join in with therapeutic activities to help encourage movement and socialisation.

Regular meetings and handovers were held amongst all staff members to share information and enable oversight of people’s health and wellbeing.

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’s plans of care were routinely reviewed. A relative told us, “We talk with staff about care and support needs, including outcomes. We usually do this via FaceTime meetings.”

Records detailed people’s planned outcomes, including both short term and longer-term goals, such as improvement in clinical needs, increased communication and plans for future care needs. The provider confirmed that this was an area of care planning they wished to develop further with the newly recruited manager once they commenced their role.

Systems had been implemented to enable an overview of clinical risks for people such as wound management, nutrition, infections and hospital admissions for monitoring.

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

Processes were in place to enable people to make their own choices. Staff knew and understood people’s communication needs and engaged technology where this was an identified communication tool for a person.

Where people were unable to communicate their own wishes, or give consent, a collaborative best interest’s process was undertaken with all relevant stakeholders.

A relative told us, “[Relative] feels that staff are confident and competent and understand that he likes to be spoken with during care and support.”

People’s care plans included capacity assessments which detailed how their capacity for the decision was assessed. Where needed, best interest decisions were made, and also Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) were requested or in place.

We noted that a number of best interests documents had been completed for people who were assessed as having capacity. Whilst we saw these records confirmed capacity, and no decision was reached on people’s behalf, these records were unnecessary. The provider confirmed they were making ongoing checks and reviews of documentation in place.