Jubilee House

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 63 (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.

Each person had a care plan in place. The care plans were thorough, recording all aspects of people’s needs. Where people had complex needs the care planning was detailed, covering for example, use of equipment to aid mobility, all aspects of their personal care and all aspects of the persons daily life and wellbeing.

The provider did not always plan and deliver people’s care and treatment with them, including what was important and mattered to them.

There was a lack of a dementia care approach informed by evidence based practice to meet the needs of the people living with dementia. The environment was not designed to support people living with dementia, for example, using signage to help people find their way around their living area. There was a large garden area but this was yet to be made secure or be developed to be supportive to people living with dementia so they could enjoy being outside safely without supervision.

There was no covered area for people who wished to smoke to use outside the building. People that wanted to smoke had to sit outside without cover in all weather conditions. The registered manager said they had plans to develop a structure that met peoples’ needs but was also a safe distance from the building.

Some relatives did not know about the content of people’s care plans, but others said they did. The registered manager said they would record when relatives were invited to care planning review meetings or when relatives were told about the content of a person’s care plan. These records will demonstrate that all relatives are being offered the opportunity to be involved in care planning reviews.

The delivery of care, support and activities by the service was generally good and there were thorough chart and care records demonstrating that physical care was being delivered to a high standard.

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.

The service had experienced significant turnover of care staff in recent months and so several new care staff had entered the staff team. Some were experienced and some were new to working in care. The new staff team was working well together to meet peoples’ needs.

The service was holding handover meetings between shift and team meetings amongst the staff, to ensure changes in people’s needs and circumstances were communicated to all the staff delivering each person’s care. The service worked effectively with health and social care professionals involved in each person’s care.

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 were supported with their nutrition and hydration as necessary. Where needed records of people’s intake of food and drinks was kept ensuring that people remained well.

The quality of the food at the service was praised by everyone. A menu plan was in place which was changed by the season. People’s personal preferences were considered so people were offered food they liked. People said the food was always of high quality and was well cooked and presented. For example, one person said, “The best thing about this place is the food. There is a good selection and it’s beautifully cooked.”

The provider did not always routinely monitor people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it. They did not always ensure that outcomes were positive and consistent, or that they met both clinical expectations and the expectations of people themselves.

Following feedback from people given at a recent resident meeting the provision of activities was being reorganised. At our first visit some people said that they were bored and did not have enough to do. By our second visit a new approach to activities had been organised. In the new arrangement the activities coordinator would focus on supporting people individually who chose to stay in their rooms, and daily group activities and entertainment from outside the home, would be supported by the staff team. This new approach was newly implemented during this assessment period and so several people commented that they did not have enough to do. One person said, “The staff invite me to events, but I prefer to stay alone in my room which they respect. My daughter takes me out but other than that I will stay in my room unless it’s something special. I did like it when they brought the animals in. They should do that more.”

On our first visit some people felt that the staff were not supporting them when handover meetings between shifts were taking place and records were being completed. By our second visit staff were doing these activities at the end of the dining room, next to the main lounge so that staff were always aware of peoples’ needs in the lounge.

Systems were in place to monitor people’s health and wellbeing, for example, people’s weights, food and fluid intakes were recorded as necessary.

The provider did not always tell people about their rights around consent and did not always respect their rights when delivering care and treatment.

There was a lack of an evidence based approach in the service to meet the needs of the people living with dementia. This meant that people living with dementia were receiving support that had not been designed to meet their needs.

The service had Mental Capacity Act 2005 policy and procedures in place and knew their content. The provider had a policy of minimising the use of restrictive approaches, such as avoiding the use of bedrails. However, there was some use of restrictive safety equipment, and this was not being recorded as having been agreed through a best interest process in line with the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005. For example, an infrared sensor beam was being used to indicate to staff when a person was moving from their bed. This was in place to ensure they were kept safe. The agreement to the use of this equipment had not been recorded within the person’s best interest documentation. By the time of our second visit these records had been put in place.