Jubilee House

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

This service scored 71 (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.

Relatives told us they had some concerns about clothes not being returned to the right person or lost. However, a new system for laundry began just before our assessment began. Laundry is now being sent out of the care home to be cleaned by an external contractor. The external service will also label everyone’s clothes as they are sent through to them. In this way all clothes will be labelled with individual people’s names, making it easier for clothes to be sorted and returned to their individual owner when they return to the home fully laundered.

When we first visited the service, people’s individual property records, that should have listed all of people’s clothes and other property, were not being kept up to date and accurate. By our second visit these records had been updated and a process introduced to ensure they are regularly reviewed to make sure they remain accurate.

On our first visit people’s care, although being planned and recorded to show how people’s social, emotional and welfare needs were to be met, needed to improve. By our second visit people’s need for activities that addressed their individual preferences were being identified and planned, so that the plan for each person’s activities met their individual preferences and needs.

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.

Timely referrals had been made to external healthcare professionals to support people with their identified needs. The service was regularly supported by the community nurses with any nursing care task that a person using the service needed.

People benefited from a staff team who knew them well. This helped ensure people received continuity in their care, and changes in their health were monitored and reviewed.

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

All providers of publicly funded adult social care must follow the Accessible Information Standard. The service was compliant with this standard, but some improvements were being made. If people’s first language was not English, the service relied on the provider’s Information Technology (IT) to translate the existing information into the person’s preferred language.

The service provides an information file to every person new to the service that contains the service brochure, the Statement of Purpose and a Service User Guide. However, people told us that they felt they could have more detailed information about the service, such as the normal routine timings within the home. The registered manager said that the provider had plans to update the service’s brochure and improve the information available to people on admission to the home.

The service did not have an individual website, relying instead on being noted on the providers website. There was minimal information about this individual service on this website. When we began our assessment there was no link on the provider’s website to take the reader to the CQCs latest report and the rating for the service. By the end of our assessment this link had been added to the providers website.

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.

There was a complaints process in place and the procedure for how to make a complaint was given to everyone. People told us that they knew how to make a complaint should they want to make one. However, people told us they had never felt it necessary to do so. One person said, “I’ve never had to complain about anything”.

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

People’s care and support was being given in a timely way and in line with the quality standards and legal requirements. The service was enabling full access to care and services for each person. The service was advocating for access to specialist health services through each person’s GP practice. For example, referrals for outpatient services at the local hospital.

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’s views were taken into account and people experienced good outcomes. Staff advocated for people to ensure they were not discriminated against.

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.

The service was experienced in supporting people who were coming to the end of their lives and had been entered onto the palliative end of life care pathway by health services. ‘Just In Case’ end of life pain relief medication was stored securely by the service and was readily available to health professionals as required.