Saint Jude Care Home

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 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 requires improvement. At this assessment the rating has remained requires improvement. This meant the effectiveness of people’s care, treatment and support did not always achieve good outcomes or was inconsistent.
 

This service scored 50 (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 did not always make sure people’s care and treatment was effective by assessing and reviewing their health, care, wellbeing and communication needs with them. For example, although a pre-admission assessment was completed prior to someone moving into the home, there were gaps in how people’s care plans had been updated, which meant staff did not always have the accurate information they needed to support people effectively. One person’s care plan included information about a medical condition that was described inconsistently across two sections. Improvements were required to ensure care records were complete and reliable.
The registered manager held weekly meetings with health and social care professionals to review referrals when needed. Relatives we spoke with were positive about the care their family members received. One told us they, “Can relax knowing how well looked after [relative’s name] is.” And another explained how they were involved in the pre-admission assessment.
 

The provider did not always plan and deliver people’s care and treatment in partnership with them, or fully consider what was important and mattered to individuals. For example, although risk assessment tools were in place, the provider did not always ensure the actions identified through these tools were carried out consistently in day to day practice. People did not receive weekly weight checks where it had been advised by healthcare professionals, increasing the risk that important changes in their health could go unnoticed. However, a family member told us their relative received prompt support for a recurring health condition.

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. For example, managers and staff worked well with other health and social care professionals, including the GP surgery and community matron. Referrals were made promptly, and the community matron told us both staff and management responded well to acute illness and early signs of infection. This supported a coordinated approach to people’s care and helped ensure they received prompt input when their needs changed.

The provider did not always support people to manage their health and wellbeing, so people could not always maximise their independence, choice and control. Staff did not always support people to live healthier lives, or where possible, reduce their future needs for care and support.
For example, when reviewing the care notes for three people who had been advised by a dietician to follow a fortified diet and have weekly weight checks, we found their care notes did not show fortified meals had been offered consistently. Weight monitoring was infrequent or missing altogether. Although staff had access to online training in nutrition and hydration, not all were up to date, limiting the providers assurance people routinely received the nutritional support recommended for them.
However, staff were able to describe how they responded when people’s health needs changed and how they supported individuals to recover from periods of illness.
One person told us, “Food is ok and basic, and I don’t like mince and there’s a lot of mince here. I could ask for something else if I needed though. I see the same staff and can have drinks when I want.”

The provider did not routinely monitor people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it. They did not ensure outcomes were positive and consistent, or they met both clinical
expectations and the expectations of people themselves.
For example, clear guidance was not always provided to staff on how to monitor people’s health and wellbeing in a proactive and consistent way. One person required twice‑daily blood pressure monitoring, but there were gaps in the records and no instructions for staff on what action to take if readings were outside the expected range. Management did not have oversight of this, meaning they could not be assured changes in the person’s health would be identified promptly. Staff seemed to be unsure of the purpose of taking the readings. For another person at risk of angina, there was no guidance for staff on the symptoms to look out for or what to do if prescribed medication, such as a GTN spray, did not relieve symptoms. This limited staff’s ability to respond effectively to deterioration. There was not always evidence these monitoring records were reviewed or audited to identify trends or inform updates to care plans.
 

The provider did not always tell people about their rights around consent when delivering care and treatment.
For example, although Mental Capacity Act (MCA) training was available, staff did not consistently complete this, which may affect staff confidence in implementing the legislation in practice. Feedback from people was mixed, one person told us staff did not always ask for their permission before carrying out certain tasks, indicating that approaches to seeking consent were not consistently followed by all staff.
However, where individuals were assessed as lacking capacity, appropriate assessments had been completed, and an MCA policy was in place to guide staff practice. Another person we spoke with told us their privacy was respected, reflecting some staff did apply the principles appropriately.