Jaytee Care Demi House

On this page

• Overview
• Shared direction and culture
• Capable, compassionate and inclusive leaders
• Freedom to speak up
• Workforce equality, diversity and inclusion
• Governance, management and sustainability
• Partnerships and communities
• Learning, improvement and innovation

Well-led – this means we looked for evidence that service leadership, management and governance assured high-quality, person-centred care; supported learning and innovation; and promoted an open, fair culture. At our last assessment we rated this key question requires improvement. At this assessment the rating has remained requires improvement. This meant the management and leadership was inconsistent. Leaders and the culture they created did not always support the delivery of high-quality, person-centred care.

This service scored 61 (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’s vision for the service was not consistently experienced by those engaged in the service. Relatives had mixed views about the culture at the home with some feeling this was good and they were happy with the staff approach and others feeling more could be done to ensure people had better outcomes. A relative told us they did not feel the service always supported people to achieve their aspirations. Whilst other relatives told us staff knew people well and people were happy at the service and doing well. We found relatives were not consistently engaged in peoples care and planning for reaching their goals and developing aspirations. Records did not consistently show where people had tried new experiences, and their reviews did not consider individual aspirations. However, staff told us they felt the culture at the home was positive and they actively supported people to access support. Staff confirmed they had information to guide them with supporting people in line with their protected characteristics. A staff member said, “It is important to recognise people’s religion and culture.” The staff member went on to describe how they supported individuals to meet their cultural needs and preferences. The registered manager told us she wanted to see an inclusive environment where people could live as part of the community. The registered manager told us, “When we first opened, it was all about this being people’s home, I wanted to steer away from having an institutional environment.”

The provider did not consistently have leaders who had the skills knowledge and experience to lead effectively. Relatives had mixed views about the leadership of the service. Some felt they were included and others felt they were not engaged in peoples care planning and reviews. Records we reviewed confirmed relatives were not consistently engaged in reviewing their loved ones care and support where this was appropriate. However, the registered manager told us they had systems in place to share oversight of the service with the team leader when they could not be present in the service. The registered manager said they were confident that staff received the support they needed when they were unavailable. Staff confirmed they had access to support from the registered manager and team leader. A staff member told us, “You can seek support in 3 ways, face to face, supervision or via email.” However, as relatives were not confident in these arrangements’ improvements were needed to ensure seamless arrangements were in place when the registered manager was not available.

The provider fostered a positive culture where people felt they could speak up and their voice would be heard. There was a policy in place to support staff to speak up if they had any concerns. Staff told us they were aware of how to raise any concerns. A staff member said, “We have a whistleblowing process, if I have a concern I speak to the team leader or registered manager, if nothing is done, I would take it to the Local Authority or I would call CQC.”

The provider valued diversity in their workforce. They worked towards an inclusive and fair culture by improving equality and equity for people who worked for them. The registered manager told us they had a multicultural staff team which they supported. There were polices in place to ensure equality, diversity and inclusion for staff. Staff confirmed they felt supported and treated equally by the registered manager and they had their individual needs met.

The provider had systems in place for governance of the service, however not all processes had been effective. The provider had not consistently ensured relatives feedback on the service had been sought. The systems in place to engage relatives in the planning and review of people’s care were not always effective and improvements were needed. The registered manager told us they would increase contact with relatives to improve their involvement in people’s care. The registered manager told us they had systems in place to have oversight of the service. We saw systems were in place to check the building for risks and safety issues, monitor the care people received, review care plans and ensure medicines were administered as required. These systems were not consistently effective in ensuring risk assessments and care plans were accurately updated when peoples need changed and this was an area for improvement.

The provider understood their duty to collaborate and work in partnership, so services worked seamlessly for people. They shared information and learning with partners and collaborated for improvement. Staff told us they worked in partnership with other professionals to support people with their care. Staff were able to give examples of how they supported people to access health professionals. The registered manager told us they had worked with other agencies since the last inspection to make the required improvements. Partners confirmed the provider worked with them when needed and were keen to see improvements in the service.

The provider did not consistently focus on continuous learning, innovation and improvement. Staff were not consistently applying the learning they had received when supporting people. We saw records did not consistently describe how people had independently completed some tasks and the level of support they had. Care plans and reviews did not identify how people were supported to meet their cultural needs and have goals for the future. Relatives shared mixed views about the skills staff had to support people. Some relatives felt staff lacked the skills to support people effectively to improve their quality of life, develop and achieve goals or aspirations. We spoke to the registered manager about this, and they told us, staff had skills and experience in supporting people to identify goals and aspirations, and this happened regularly. They described short term goals and achievements which people had worked on; however, they recognised families had not been fully communicated with and told us they would enhance this. We will check this at our next inspection. However, the registered manager told us they encouraged staff to engage in discussions about learning when things went wrong and how to make improvements to the service. Staff confirmed they felt able to influence how the service was improved. A staff member told us, “The registered manager discusses things in the staff meetings, we discuss the way forward and the staff all put their heads together for a result.”