Jubilee Court Nursing 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 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 changed to 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 54 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

People’s care plans were not always reflective of their assessed needs. All the care plans we reviewed regarding people’s assessed needs had crucial missing information regarding their health supports needs and lacked guidance for staff to follow. For example, we found one person had pressure damage to their skin and this information was not recorded in the care plan to guide staff how to provide safe care. We also found daily notes to record the care and support people received was not always accurate and there were gaps. This lack of information meant the provider could not be certain they had all the relevant details about each person and their care needs to ensure the delivery of safe care.

The provider did not follow legislation and current evidence-based good practice and standards. People did not always have their nutrition and hydration needs met. We found people who were significantly underweight, and at risk of malnutrition had risk management plans in place and one of the actions were for staff to offer mid-morning and afternoon snacks. However, we found staff had not offered these, records demonstrated that people were either not offered a snack or had been given juice as their snack. This meant people were at continued risk of malnutrition and losing further weight. Where people required to be monitored for their fluid intake, we were not assured people were offered their daily target amount to ensure they met their targets. This meant people were at risk of dehydration and developing further health conditions. People and relatives spoke positive about the food and the food choices they were offered during their mealtimes.

The provider had effective systems and processes to work with other services and they worked well together. This involved professionals such as GP's, nurses, pharmacist, social workers, and commissioners. Once a week there was a meeting with health professionals to discuss any concerns regarding people’s health or medicine. These visits were logged in professional visits in each person’s daily log records to demonstrate what was discussed and agreed. However, the information was not always recorded in relevant care plans to ensure all the staff team had current information regarding people’s health and care support needs. During our onsite visit we observed these meetings had taken place. Where other professionals were required to be involved such as health consultants, the staff team ensured information was shared between all professionals. The provider told us the staff team have built good, working relationships with all stakeholders to ensure effective partnership working.

People’s healthcare needs had not always been recorded and planned for. Assessments and care plans did not always include information about symptoms staff needed to be aware of to monitor people’s health. This meant there was a risk they may not receive the right support.

Processes and systems were not in place to ensure recording was accurate and factual. We found daily notes were not always completed contemporaneously on food and fluid monitoring records; therefore, it was not clear if people were having enough to eat or drink. There were processes in place to ensure people had opportunities to see healthcare professionals such as optician and podiatry. People and relatives told us their healthcare needs were being met.

People’s care was not always clearly monitored. Records showed what people had eaten, drank, wellbeing checks, breathing checks, repositioned, and care interventions were not always completed clearly or accurately by staff. Most records indicated the care was all given at the same time for every person living at Jubilee Court, which would not be possible. We found night records where staff had recorded night summaries around 3am, when the shift had not been completed. This meant people were at risk of harm due to not having their support as assessed. Poor record keeping and gaps in people’s care interventions had not been investigated which meant the provider was not always able to assess whether people’s needs had been met or improve people’s outcomes.

For people who were deemed to lack capacity to consent to decisions regarding their care, staff had completed a mental capacity assessment and consulted with their relatives or representatives where required. However, care plans contradicted what the mental capacity assessments had demonstrated. For example, we found mental capacity assessment showing people lacked capacity and required best interest decisions. However, the care plans stated the people had capacity. This meant people were at risk of not having their needs met.