Jah-Jireh Charity Homes Wigan

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.

The provider was in breach of regulation 17 regarding good governance.

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 had a shared vision, strategy and culture. This was based on transparency, equity, equality and human rights, diversity and inclusion, engagement, and understanding challenges and the needs of people and their communities.

The new management team had been in post since March 2025. They showed and lead with a clear vision of improvements for the home. We saw improvement plans in place and actions that had already been achieved, although many also needed to be completed. The home manager told us they worked well with the provider and received adequate support. Staff we spoke with told us the improvements made were positive and changed the atmosphere of the home.

The atmosphere in the home was positive and reflected a supportive staff culture. A range of different staff team meetings were held regularly to provide updates. This helped identify from staff’s perspective any potential gaps in quality, and to ensure as a service, the provider was meeting people’s needs, and leaders engaged regularly with the staff team.

Jah-Jireh is a faith home for Jehovah’s Witnesses. The ethos of the home is to create a loving, spiritual environment where elderly Jehovah's Witnesses are cared for. The aim of the homes is to meet their physical and spiritual needs. People wanted the staff to demonstrate Christian values, such as showing value for each unique individual created by God treating others with dignity and respect, contributing to a sense of community and belonging with a family like environment.

The provider 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. Leaders had the skills, knowledge, experience and credibility to lead effectively. They did so with integrity, openness and honesty.

Since the last inspection the previous registered manager had left. The current manager was applying to take the registration of the home and the provider had notified CQC of these changes. The management team knew people well and were passionate about making sure people received good quality care and were supported by the provider.

The provider was present at the service regularly and attended quality meetings and completed governance review documents about the home, although we found this required improvement in some areas.

Leaders of the service were suitably experienced and qualified and had clearly defined roles and accountabilities and had the skills and competence to get involved in the direct delivery of care if required. The home manager had a wealth of experience in the care sector and was committed to driving change at the home.

We asked staff for their views of the current management arrangements at the home. One member of staff said, “The new manager has been very good so far and I have everything I need. They have been very accommodating.” Another member of staff said, “The manager is really nice and I feel very well supported. There is good management and leadership here.”

The provider fostered a positive culture where people felt they could speak up and their voice would be heard.

There were several channels available to staff, relatives and people living at the home to voice any concerns they had. This included staff supervisions, although we found these had fallen behind in 2025. Other opportunities included team meetings, resident/relative meetings and surveys. An anonymous feedback box was available should people wanted to raise any concerns confidentially.

Staff told us the manager was supportive and approachable and felt confident they could speak about any problems impacting their work. There was a whistleblowing procedure in place which explained how staff could report any concerns if needed, as well as a poster on the wall near the home managers office.

People living at the home said there were opportunities to speak up and raise any concerns. One person said, “The meetings are a good chance to discuss views and ask for things to be changed.” Another person added, “I go to the meetings when issues are being discussed, so I can air my views. My husband and I are both very happy here.”

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 staff team was diverse with many staff from overseas. The provider’s recruitment procedure helped ensure equality of opportunity for applicants. Staff benefited from a working culture in which equality, diversity and inclusion was promoted. Staff told us they worked as a team which felt like a family. Overseas staff described the support and guidance for them when they first began working at the home.

Staff said they were treated fairly and felt included and valued by the management team. Staff reported good morale and team working. They told us the management team were supportive and understanding of their needs and situations.

Adjustments were made to working conditions for staff if they had been off work with sickness or injury. For example, providing them with light duties until they were signed off by their GP to complete normal tasks again. Where staff may be pregnant, they were removed from tasks such as moving and handling. One member of the staff had worked at the home on light duties following an operation until she was assessed by her consultant to say she could go back to full duties.

The provider did not have clear responsibilities, roles, systems of accountability and good governance. They did not act on the best information about risk, performance and outcomes, or share this securely with others when appropriate.

At our last inspection in November and December 2022, we rated the home Requires Improvement in the well-led key question. This was because governance systems were not fully effective in identifying the concerns found during that inspection. We found further improvements were still required at this inspection.

Daily walk arounds were completed, although weren’t being done each day at the time of our visit based on the records we were provided with. They also didn’t provide a focus on some of the environmental risks we had identified such as wardrobes not being secured to walls, radiators not having covers and whether fire doors were being used effectively. The provider said they would expect these concerns to be picked up as part of these daily checks.

Resident of the day audits were completed, although these did not check if accurate records were being maintained regarding oral hygiene, re-positioning, fluid charts and drink thickeners. The fact not all MCA assessments were in place for people had not been picked up via current governance arrangements. These had all been identified as areas of concern at this inspection.

Provider level checks were carried out which consisted of monthly governance reviews and management meetings with staff at the home. These also didn’t discuss or provide a focus on some of the areas of concern we had identified at this inspection. This meant overall governance systems at the home still required further 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.

The home worked in partnership with a number of organisations in the Wigan area. This included GP’s, tissue viability nurses, diabetic nurses and Wigan/Leigh hospice. Referrals were also made to other services such as speech and language therapy or the falls service where there were any concerns about people’s needs .

The home had an appointed quality monitoring officer who regular visited the home to monitor progress. At the time of the inspection, a service improvement plan (SIP) was in place to ensure any actions were made carried out in a timely way. There were links within the community with other local congregations of Jehovah’s witnesses and each person living at the home had a named link worker and could participate in video calls with other people.

We received feedback from commissioning teams that identified the changes that had taken place had positive outcomes for people living in the home. One healthcare professional told us, “From my visits and ongoing involvement with Jah Jireh Care Home, I can confirm that there have been notable positive changes. The care staff and seniors are supportive and proactive, with a visible commitment to maintaining good standards of care for residents. Also, I can confirm communication has been amazing.”

Although the provider used systems to capture and identify areas where learning and improvement could be applied across the organisation and local system, where concerns had been identified historically these had not always been fully resolved or embedded.

At our last inspection in November 2022, the service was rated requires improvement in the well-led question due to there being a breach of regulation 17 regarding good governance. We found similar concerns at this inspection, which meant the service was not always learning from and making improvements to ensure compliance with regulations.

The home manager had embedded improvements since starting their role at the home, although this was work in progress. The home manager and area manager had an active improvement plan in place which they both oversaw. This also prioritised the actions required to improve the service such as improving the environment, although this was still ongoing at the time of the inspection. Where accidents or incidents had happened, these were reviewed by the manager and learning for the future was taken and communicated to staff.

All staff we spoke with confirmed leaders encouraged them to speak up with ideas for improvement and innovation and actively invested time to listen and engage; we also verified this by looking at a range of meetings which had taken place throughout the year.