Jah Jireh Maryport

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 as good. This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

This service scored 64 (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.

Care plans were person centred and included key relevant information about each individual person, including their communication needs. People’s backgrounds and history was included in the care plans.

We found care to be person centred, with people being given choices and their preferences being met. A person told us, “I asked for a bath, I have a shower normally, but I asked for a bath, and they said yes.”

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.

Although the home supported people living with dementia, we found there was a lack of specific dementia friendly equipment, signage and activities. The provider had undertaken a dementia strategy action plan but was unclear when this would be implemented.

People and their families told us they were very satisfied with the level and quality of care being provided.

There was a good working relationship with the local GP who visited the home each week.

The provider did not always supply appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

We found that some families were unclear about information provided to them. For example, some families told us they felt there were protected mealtimes in place but were unsure if this was the case or not.

We found communication could be strengthened as families told us they did not know how to provide feedback about the service.

We found evidence that peoples communication needs were recorded and people were supported to understand their choices and decisions.

The provider did not always make it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support.

We did not find evidence of any residents or relatives meetings happening recently. The provider informed us these were due to be restarted in the near future.

A survey form has been installed in the entranceway to the home but had not been frequently used. Of the forms that had been received there was no overall summary or actions taken relating to the responses received.

There was no evidence that people or their families were involved in planning or arranging ideas for activities.

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

Jah Jireh was an older building that had been adapted to meet the needs and accessibility of people who lived there. Access from the rear of the property involved a gated access.

Inside the building has the use of a lift to the upper floor for people who cannot use stairs. The rooms and lay out are suitable for wheelchair access.

Jah Jireh was originally a home for people with a Jehovah’s Witness faith. Over recent years this has expanded to include non-Jehovah Witness service users.

Staff told us that everyone is supported equally.

We saw that appropriate referrals were made to specialist services where needed, for example falls services and CHESS (care home education support services) team.

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 attended a weekly meeting at the Kingdom Hall which was located next to Jah Jireh. For people who cannot physically attend the meeting, this was shown on the large television screens in the lounge area of Jah Jireh.

For non-Jehovah’s Witnesses, staff spent time undertaking activities with people.

We found evidence of staff treating people as individuals, enabling them to experience equity in outcomes. For example, a non-Jehovah’s Witness person who did not have any family support, was given Christmas presents by the provider to unwrap on Christmas morning. Non-Jehovah witness people were supported to decorate their rooms at Christmas, although the main areas of the home remain undecorated due to the beliefs of Jehovah’s Witnesses.

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.

Families were included in planning for their relative’s end-of-life care where appropriate. Staff worked closely with people, their families and professionals to ensure people received dignified and person-centred care at the end of their life.

End‑of‑life planning had been discussed with a family member who held Power of Attorney. A Do Not Attempt Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation (DNACPR) decision was in place and was in date.