St Jude's 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 62 (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 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.

People were involved in the review of their care plans and risk assessments. Preferences and needs in relation to food and drink were well documented and staff adhered to these when preparing meals for or with people. People were involved in the implementation of menus to suit their needs and tastes. People’s care and support needs were reviewed regularly.

The service used input from a range of health and social care professionals, as well as people and their relatives to ensure appropriate care was delivered.

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.

People were involved in the review of their care plans and risk assessments. Preferences and needs in relation to food and drink were well documented and staff adhered to these when preparing meals for or with people. People were involved in the implementation of menus to suit their needs and tastes. People’s care and support needs were reviewed regularly.

The service used input from a range of health and social care professionals, as well as people and their relatives to ensure appropriate care was delivered.

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. The service worked with people, their relatives and health care professionals to gather information required about people to build assessments for them. However, we found some care plans lacked information to show the level of support people required with personal 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 to make decisions about their healthcare and nutrition. For example, by getting involved in choosing and preparing their meals.

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.

The home used a digital system which stored people’s health and care needs. The system sent notifications when reviews of care plans or risk assessments were due or near due. However, this system did not assist to identify or reduce the issues we found with the care plans at this assessment.

The provider told people about their rights around consent and respected these when delivering person-centred care and treatment.

We saw staff consistently sought consent to enter people’s rooms. Care plans documented people’s consent to have photographs taken. Care plans contained enough information to ensure staff understood where people were able to consent, and where best interest decisions would be needed.