Jacobs Neurological Centre

On this page

• Overview
• Person-centred Care
• Care provision, Integration and continuity
• Providing Information
• Listening to and involving people
• Equity in access
• Equity in experiences and outcomes
• Planning for the future

Responsive – this means we looked for evidence that the provider met people’s needs.

At our last assessment we rated this key question Good. At this assessment the rating has remained Good.

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 were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they decided, in partnership with people, how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs.

People and relatives felt that needs, preferences and choices were known and respected. One person told us, “They (staff) do understand what I need.” A relative told us, “I feel out family views are considered where care for [relative] is concerned. They will always tell us any changes.” A visiting professional told us, “I am involved in client meetings, reviews, best interest meetings, safeguarding meetings. People without capacity are brought into any meetings involving them.”

We observed staff being attentive and adapting their approach from person to person, which demonstrated their awareness of person-centred care.

Care plans were detailed and gave clear information about people’s needs, preferences and lifestyle.

The provider understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was joined-up, flexible and supported choice and continuity.

People with varied and complex needs lived at the service. One relative told us, “Overall, I think the care and support provided is effective and the service understands the needs of its user group.”

Feedback from the provider, staff and partners was clear. All explained that the service provided equal opportunities and there was a clear demonstration through the assessment process that the service considered the needs of different people, including those with protected characteristics.

The provider supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

People and their relatives had access to information when they needed it. A relative told us, “When [relative] joined the service, the communication was good. We received an information pack.”

Information was available at the service, including in different formats where needed. Care plans detailed people’s communication needs and preferences and ways in which communication should be adapted. We observed staff using technology and communication aids to communicate with people as needed.

The provider made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. Staff involved people in decisions about their care and told them what had changed as a result.

People and relatives told us they were happy to make a complaint or raise concerns. One person told us, “I do not normally complain but have recently had to complain twice.” They went on to explain their concern and how it was responded to. They confirmed, “Both my complaints were settled immediately.”

Staff were positive about how senior staff responded to concerns or complaints shared with them. One staff member told us, “The managers listen to us when we bring issues to their attention.”

There were systems in place to seek feedback. This included a complaints procedure, meetings and surveys. The provider confirmed that recent changes to systems was enabling them to record, and demonstrate, a more robust response to any feedback received.

The provider made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.

There were consistent arrangements in place for the planning and delivery of care for everyone, without discrimination.

The provider had a clear system in place to ensure all people had access to care, support and treatment outside of the service as needed such as the enhanced care practitioner, out of hours GP, or escalation to emergency services if needed.

Staff and leaders actively listened to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes and tailored their care, support and treatment in response to this.

People with a variety of needs, backgrounds and cultures were supported by the service.

The service had policies and processes in place to ensure people were treated equally and took action to ensure all people were provided with opportunities to give feedback about their care.

People were supported to plan for important life changes, so they could have enough time to make informed decisions about their future, including at the end of their life.

People, and their relatives where appropriate, were supported to discuss preferences about future care needs and, where they wished to, the end of their life. A relative told us, “Yes, we have all discussed future care needs and [relative’s] DNAR wishes.”

Care plans included records of future care needs discussions and end of life care decisions. This included if people had chosen not to speak about it. There was a record of any Do Not Attempt Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation (DNACPR) and Recommended Summary Plan for Emergency Care and Treatment (ReSPECT) processes completed.