Jackson 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.

People’s needs, emotions and level of distress were assessed using a range of assessment tools to ensure they were reflected and understood. Relatives told us their loved ones received good care at the service.

The provider planned and delivered people’s care and treatment with them, including what was important and mattered to them. They did this in line with legislation and current evidence-based good practice and standards.

Staff were knowledgeable about people’s individual dietary needs, including the requirements of people on modified diets and those with diabetes.

The provider did not always work well across teams and services to support people. They did not always share their assessment of people’s needs when people moved between different services.

Systems and processes had not identified that some hospital passports contained outdated information. For example, one document had not been updated for over 18 months and contained conflicting information regarding the person's preferred methods of communication. In addition, the document did not include sufficient guidance on the strategies and reasonable adjustments required to support the person during clinical appointments. This meant healthcare professionals may not have access to accurate and up-to-date information to ensure the person's communication needs and support requirements were consistently understood and met. These were immediately reviewed and updated to reflect the current needs of people.

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 encouraged and supported to understand and make healthier choices, including those relating to their diet, lifestyle, physical activity, and personal and oral hygiene. We observed people independently accessing and making use of outdoor spaces and one person had recently joined a gym, which further promoted autonomy and choice. Staff had completed first aid training, and first aid kits were generally well stocked, supporting the service’s ability to respond to minor injuries.

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.

Some people expressed agitation which was repetitive in nature. There was a lack of effective monitoring, learning and analysis of this behaviour to identify people’s potential triggers, early warning signs and strategies successful in reducing their occurrence and impact. This meant opportunities to adapt and continuously improve people’s psychological care and outcomes were missed. However, staff knew how to manage these situations safely. Records reviewed showed staff were monitoring blood glucose levels; however, there was a lack of clear guidance for staff regarding what action to take when blood sugar readings fell outside the person's normal range. Care documentation did not specify escalation procedures, thresholds for concern, or the actions required in response to high or low blood glucose readings. This placed reliance on staff knowledge and increased the risk of inconsistent management of the person's diabetes-related needs. The team immediately took our feedback on board and put the relevant information in place. People had access to regular clinical input, including GP and dental appointments, supporting ongoing health monitoring.

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

Mental Capacity Assessments (MCAs) were not consistently completed in line with the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005. Records reviewed lacked sufficient detail to demonstrate how a person's capacity had been assessed, including the information provided to the person, the support offered to aid decision-making, and the rationale for the outcome reached. We also found examples where decisions had been made on behalf of individuals without evidence that the MCA framework had been considered or applied. This meant it was not always possible to be assured that people's rights were being protected and that decisions were being made in accordance with legal requirements.

The manager commenced a review of all MCAs to ensure there were no further shortfalls.We observed staff sought consent from people before delivering care or support.