Jasmine Court Independent Hospital

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

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 changed to Good.

This meant the service was consistently managed and well-led. Leaders and the culture they created promoted high-quality, person-centred care.

The provider’s senior leadership team had successfully communicated the provider’s vision and values to the frontline staff in this service. This was evident in team meeting minutes.

Staff felt respected, supported and valued. They said the service promoted equality and diversity in daily work and provided opportunities for development and career progression. They could raise any concerns without fear.

This service scored 75 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

The service had a shared vision, strategy and culture that was based on transparency, equity, equality and human rights, diversity and inclusion, engagement, and understanding and meeting the needs of people and our communities.

Staff were aware of the provider values of ‘Respect, Integrity, Passion, Empowerment and Responsibility’ and demonstrated these values in their day-to-day work.

The provider’s senior leadership team had successfully communicated the provider’s vision and values to the frontline staff in this service.

The service had inclusive leaders at all levels who understood the context in which they delivered care, treatment and support and embodied the culture and values of their workforce and organisation. They had the skills, knowledge, experience and credibility to lead effectively and do so with integrity, openness and honesty.

Leaders were visible in the service and approachable for patients and staff. We spoke with 9 members of staff. All the staff we spoke with said the hospital director and other senior leaders were both approachable and engaged well with staff and patients.

Leaders had a good understanding of the services they managed. They could explain clearly how the teams were working to provide high quality care.

The service created a positive culture where people felt that they could speak up and that their voice would be heard.

Patients and carers had opportunities to give feedback on the service they received in a manner that reflected their individual needs. The service listened to patients in the community meetings and changes were either made or concerns openly discussed.

The provider had a speak up champion process, which provided clear guidance around raising concerns and whistleblowing. The provider had a designated role of Freedom to Speak Up Champion to support this culture and ensure employees felt safe and confident speaking up. All staff we spoke with told us they felt confident in speaking up and in raising concerns or making suggestions for improvements.

Managers and staff had access to the feedback from patients, carers and staff and used it to make improvements. This includes conducting staff, patient and carer surveys.

The service valued diversity in their workforce. They worked towards an inclusive and fair culture by improving equality and equity for people who work for them.

Barchester had an Inclusion group, set up two years ago, to ensure they created an inclusive culture and to celebrate diversity. National campaigns included raising the profile and awareness of the diversity in their workforce including Pride month, black history month, religious celebrations, disability pride and National inclusion week.

Locally, workforce diversity was celebrated with cultural days and celebrations with national dress, home foods and stories shared.

The service employed a diverse team of staff from international backgrounds. Staff did not raise any concerns about discrimination and all the staff we spoke with said they were treated fairly and had good opportunities for personal and professional development.

The service had clear responsibilities, roles, systems of accountability and good governance to manage and deliver good quality, sustainable care, treatment and support. The service acted on the best information about risk, performance and outcomes, and share this securely with others when appropriate.

Our findings from the other key questions demonstrated that governance processes operated effectively at team level and that performance and risk were managed well. Governance arrangements were proactively reviewed and reflected best practice.

There was a clear framework of what must be discussed at a ward, team or directorate level in team meetings to ensure that essential information, such as learning from incidents and complaints, was shared and discussed. Team meetings followed a set pro-forma to ensure consistency.

Clinical governance meetings were held regularly. The agenda was comprehensive, areas of concern were identified, and actions were taken to learn and improve. The meeting was chaired by the hospital clinical lead and covered standard agenda items including monthly risk analysis, restrictive practice, learning and development and planning.

Staff had implemented recommendations from reviews of incidents, complaints and safeguarding alerts. For example, we could see that a restrictive practice was reviewed and adjusted to utilise equipment to monitor a patient at night to give the patient more privacy whilst maintaining practices to keep them safe; This was in place of 1:1 observations and at the patients request.

Staff undertook or participated in clinical audits. For example, managers were conducting a monthly medication record audit.

Staff maintained and had access to the risk register. The risk register for the hospital included 6 open risks. These included the risk of national shortage of medications required by patients, abuse of patients, injury to staff and ligature points. The risk register included a score for the consequence of each risk; the likelihood and actions being taken to address the risk and timescales for completing those actions.

The service had contingency plans for emergencies, for example major fire or outbreaks of infectious diseases.

Staff had access to the equipment and information technology needed to do their work. The information technology infrastructure, including the telephone system worked and helped to improve the quality of care. The Wi-Fi coverage was poor in some areas, and this was an issue currently receiving focus from the service for improvement.

Managers had access to information to support them with their management role. This included information on the performance of the service, staffing and patient care.

The service understood their duty to collaborate and work in partnership, so services worked seamlessly for people. They shared information and learning with partners and collaborate for improvement.

The service had developed a good relationship with an NHS trust that commissioned the beds at the service.

Patients and staff could meet with members of the provider’s senior leadership team and commissioners to give and receive feedback.

The service focused on continuous learning, innovation and improvement across the organisation and local system. They encouraged creative ways of delivering equality of experience, outcome and quality of life for people.

The service had a positive and robust approach to improvement and learning from incidents and we saw examples of where lessons had been learnt, and changes made after incidents.

Innovations were taking place in the service. They were in the process of embedding The Culture of Care Standards.

The service was focussing on developing the training, skills and confidence of newly recruited Nurses to the service.

The service participated in accreditation schemes relevant to the service and learned from them. This was evident in current staff being offered apprenticeships and diplomas to enable them to progress their career.