Hennis Joe Limited

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.

This is the first assessment for service. This key question has been rated good. This meant the service was consistently managed and well-led. Leaders and the culture they created promoted high-quality, person-centred care.

This service scored 71 (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. Staff knew the aims and values of the organisation and management told us they went through the values of the service as part of the induction for new staff.

The registered manager operated an ‘open door’ policy where people, relatives and staff could speak to them at any time to ensure there was an open culture where concerns could be raised and acted upon.

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.

The registered manager was seen as approachable, supportive and committed to improving the service. Staff describe the leader as fair, compassionate and willing to listen. Staff were positive about the registered manager. A staff member told us, “My manager is good, registered manager support us, she is very open and knowledgeable.” The registered manager knew people well and were committed in improving the service to ensure people received high quality care. A relative told us, “Manager is very good and always updates me if there were any concerns.”

The provider fostered a positive culture where people felt they could speak up and their voice would be heard. The provider had appropriate polices in place as well as a policy on Duty of Candour to ensure staff acted in an open and transparent way in relation to care and treatment if people came to harm. The registered manager told us people had information in their folders in their home about how to raise concerns. Staff we spoke with were aware of how to raise concerns.

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. Policies and procedures to promote diversity and equality were in place. The registered manager told us how they supported staff and valued their beliefs by making reasonable adjustments to staff’s working patterns to support their diversity.

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

Governance systems were in place to monitor the quality of the service; however, these were not always effective in identifying some shortfalls within care records for one person. For example, the provider’s moving and handling policy stated, “Each service user will have a person-centred moving and handling risk assessment,” yet this was not always in place.

We also found that care plans lacked information relating to the prevention and management of pressure sores, with limited detail describing how staff should provide personalised support. In addition, gaps were identified within eating and drinking care plans. Although records stated that the person required a puréed diet as recommended by the Speech and Language Therapy (SALT) team, there was no information about the person’s food preferences, including likes and dislikes.

This had minimal impact on people, as staff demonstrated a good understanding of individuals’ needs, and the provider was open and honest about the areas they recognised required improvement. Audits in other areas, including the environment, infection prevention and control (IPC), and medicines management, were effective. The provider had also developed an action plan, which was being implemented at the time of the assessment.

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 registered manager and staff worked effectively with health and social care professionals to meet people’s needs. Staff had undertaken reviews with relevant healthcare professionals as people’s needs had increased and made referrals to occupational therapists, community nurses and GPs when needed. Records confirmed people had access to social and health professionals to ensure they were in the best of health.

The provider 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. They actively contributed to safe, effective practice and research.

Whilst the provider was taking action in response to the shortfalls identified, progress in some areas, such as improving care records, was evident.

Accidents and incidents were generally managed appropriately, with lessons learned identified and shared with staff through meetings, supervisions, and reflective practice sessions. The registered manager demonstrated a clear commitment to providing a good-quality service.