JADE Healthcare Services

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.

This is the first assessment for this home care service. This key question has been rated requires improvement.

This meant people’s needs were not always met.

This service scored 54 (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.

Some people spoke well of their regular staff who supported them. People had formed positive, respectful relationships with these members of staff.

However, people’s care records were not always person centred. Care plans lacked guidance for staff to follow on how people liked to be supported. People told us they were happy with the care; however, care plans did not provide details of their likes, dislikes and preferences. We also noted people’s preferences were not always recorded. For example, when people liked to have their wash, what food and drink they preferred, or preference on their environment. This meant it would be difficult for care staff to provide person-centred care.

Staff, including the registered manager, had up to date knowledge of people’s needs and any changes in the support they required. Although review of people’s care had taken place, care plans had not been updated with any relevant changes such as when people had been discharged from hospital, or when mobility needs had changed. This meant information in people’s care plans was not up to date and they were at of receiving incorrect care, placing them at risk of harm.

There were some shortfalls in how the provider understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was not always joined-up, flexible or supportive of choice and continuity.

Most people told us they received consistent teams of staff. However, we received feedback that when regular staff were absent, relief staff were not as familiar with their needs or motivated in their role. This reflected the feedback the provider had received from their own internal quality assurance.

Care plans did not contain specific information regarding people's diverse health and care needs. For example, care plans did not contain information around diabetes to guide staff on what signs and symptoms to look for. This was raised with the provider during the assessment who gave assurances they would act on this.

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

The provider did not always supply appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs. Staff told us they had access to policies and procedures in respect of their role.

Although people and their relatives knew what care had been agreed, how and when their care was to be delivered which indicated appropriate information had been shared, care plans did not document the person’s wishes and preferences.

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

The registered manager and staff were knowledgeable about people’s needs and any changes to their care, but this information was not always documented in the appropriate way. The registered manager and staff were able to be fully involved in regular conversations with each other regarding changes to care and support needs at the time of the assessment. However, this did not negate the need for sufficient recording and review systems to be in place to enable important information to be properly documented.

People who use the service, as well as staff told us they felt listened to by the service and their views and opinions were valued.

The provider had a complaints policy which detailed how complaints would be overseen appropriately. People told us they felt able to raise any issues or complaints and their concerns were taken seriously by senior staff.

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

People confirmed they were supported to access health and medical services as needed.Whether this was with the support of staff or by organising care calls around appointments. Staff received training in equality and diversity. They had a good understanding of how to help ensure people had access to the services they required.

Staff and leaders actively listened to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes and tailored their support in response to this.

The provider had appropriate policies in place, such as equality and diversity, lone working, complaints and safeguarding to guide equitable practice. Staff had completed training in equality, diversity and inclusion which helped them better understand and reduce inequalities which may be faced by people using the service.

People using the service told us they felt listened to by the provider. People’s experience of the service was positive. People and relatives felt the support met their or their loved one’s needs. People and relatives knew who to contact and how, including having managers’ contact details or access to a messaging service with the team managers. People told us informal concerns raised with staff were acted upon and resolved. One person told us they had to raise a concern, however they said the provider was “the most proactive I’ve ever had” and they are happy with the response and service they received.

The provider did not always provide support 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.

An effective system was not fully in place to support people 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.

At the time of the assessment, people had not been asked about their end-of-life preferences. We did not see evidence or information on record of if people had advanced directives and ReSPECT forms in place. A ReSPECT form (Recommended Summary Plan for Emergency Care and Treatment) is used to record a person's wishes and preferences for their care, so that in an emergency, treatment can be provided in line with what matters most to them. This meant that people were at risk of receiving life sustaining treatment against their wishes.

Management staff explained that further training and work in relation to this important area is needed.