Saint Jude Care Home

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 the provider met people’s needs.

At our last assessment we did not rate this key question. At this assessment the rating is 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 did not always make sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they did not always work in partnership with people, to decide how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs. For example, further work was needed to ensure care plans were accurate, current, and developed with people’s involvement, including how staff supported them to engage in activities they enjoyed. However, people’s interests were captured within their initial assessment, and for one person who wished to receive a daily newspaper, they were supported to do so. Staff described how they supported a person’s religious preferences, including providing pork-free meal options and supporting them to observe religious occasions.
When people’s needs changed, staff were clear about the process for informing the team leader or registered manager.
One relative commented, “Staff are very proactive: taking immediate action to address a change in presentation and getting the person to the GP.”
 

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.
For example, care plans showed people were supported to maintain relationships with their families, and many family members took their loved one’s out for day trips or to enjoy a specific hobby.
When people received support from other health services, such as Speech and Language Therapists, district nurses, management demonstrated relevant information was shared appropriately to ensure care was well coordinated.
Staff handovers between day and night staff, provided updates on people’s health, upcoming appointments and any changes to care plans.
 

The provider supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs. For example, staff were able to demonstrate how they had explored different options and worked with family members to support a person experiencing speech and language difficulties, helping to make daily communication easier. Most family members told us they were kept regularly updated about their loved one’s care and any significant changes. People’s names were displayed on their bedroom doors to help both staff and people; however, we noted some were missing. The registered manager assured us this would be addressed.

The provider did not always make it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. For example, resident meetings did take place; however, they were infrequent and often repeated similar themes, such as requests for more varied food options and increased access to different activities. This indicated issues raised were not being effectively addressed. A relative survey completed at the end of last year did not have an accompanying action plan to show how the provider intended to respond to the feedback. Likewise, a resident survey from October 2025 highlighted areas for improvement, including menu choices, food quality, and bedroom comfort, but no action plan was available to demonstrate how these concerns had been acted upon or outcomes communicated to people. This limited assurance feedback was being used to drive improvements.

People had access to the complaints policy in their bedrooms, providing them with information on how to raise concerns.

The provider made sure people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. For example, the registered manager described how they had recently supported a person to move to a ground floor bedroom following a change in mobility needs. The person told us the new room suited them much better.
Staff and management worked alongside external professionals to ensure people had equal access to healthcare services. For example, nursing teams visited the home daily to provide diabetes care for people.
Pictorial signage was used throughout the home to support accessibility and help people find their way around.
 

Staff and leaders actively listened to information about people who were most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes and tailored their care, support and treatment in response to this. For example, staff had received training in Equality, Diversity, and Inclusion, and the workforce reflected a range of backgrounds. Care plans detailed the equipment people required to ensure they had the same opportunities and experiences as others. For example, mobility aids and sensor mats for those at risk of falls. When activities were taking place in the home, staff ensured they were offered to everyone, while respecting the preferences of those chose not to join in or preferred to spend time in their rooms.

People were not always 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.
For example, while there were some evidence people’s hopes and wishes for the future were considered, further work was needed to ensure this approach was consistently embedded for everyone. We did see examples of effective partnership working with the GP practice and district nurses when people were approaching the end of their life. Families were kept informed throughout. People’s end of life wishes were recorded including their Do Not Attempt Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation (DNACPR) status.