Joseph 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

The service had a clear shared vision, strategy and culture. This was based on transparency, equity, equality and human rights, diversity and inclusion and engagement.

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 vision for what it wanted to achieve and a strategy to turn it into action. Staff and leaders shared the same vision for the service which included providing clinical excellence and patient care.

Staff told us that managers and the senior leadership team were supportive, approachable, and compassionate.

All staff had a good understanding of equality, diversity, in relation to meeting both patients' and staff's individual needs.

The service had a risk register in place. Managers had a good understanding of risks identified and were working with the team to manage them.

There were processes in place which identified the vision and strategy for the service, they were shared with staff at team meetings.

Staff we spoke with said managers and leaders at the service were supportive, approachable and knowledgeable in their roles. Staff said they felt able to approach leaders with concerns or suggestions for improvements and were able to give examples of instances where they had been listened to and changes made. Staff we spoke with said they were able to manage their workloads and that there was enough staff. They felt able to work in ways which supported their work and home life balance for example some staff worked remotely. Staff told us they had access to in-house mental health ambassadors using an online form and a mental health first aider could also be contacted for support and one of these ambassadors worked at each site.

Score: 3

There was a leadership structure in place for the service. The service had processes in place to ensure staff were recruited fairly and for roles they were competent in.

Minutes from governance meetings showed leaders were knowledgeable about their issues and priorities for the quality of the services and actions to be taken. Actions had definite timelines for completion and progress was followed at meetings.

Staff said they felt confident to speak up and that they would be supported. Each company site had a Freedom To Speak Up Guardian. Staff said there was an ‘open door’ culture, and they were able to talk to managers for support.

All staff we spoke with spoke positively about the managers and leaders at the service.

Staff were given appraisals and supervision and had opportunities to feedback at team meetings. There were also groups that staff told us the accessed for support via a group messaging service.

Leaders at the service took action to ensure there were effective and proactive ways to engage with and involve staff, with a focus on hearing the voices of staff. This included regular supervision, team meetings, and team outings. Staff we able to provide examples of times where adjustments had been made to their working environment or places of work to be able to accommodate their work life and caring responsibilities.

The service equal opportunities policy was comprehensive and offered a clear explanation of the responsibilities of the service leaders. There was also a list of a number of support groups that staff could contact for further information. The service provided staff with an Equality, Diversity & Inclusion training. All staff were also offered stress awareness training.

There was an effective governance structure in place, and managers and leaders operated effective governance processes. Staff at all levels were clear about their roles and accountabilities.

Clinical governance meetings were held monthly. We reviewed meeting minutes and saw all meetings were documented and key areas including performance, staffing and incidents were discussed.

There were structures, processes, and systems of accountability to support the delivery of the service. Performance reports and a programme of audits were in place. Following our assessment reviewed the service’s risk register. This highlighted risks to the service by risk severity level, the mitigation for the risk and also any actions or updates. The risk register, performance and incidents were discussed at meetings.

The service had service level agreements with relevant local services for example a local private ambulance service for urgent patient transport.

We did not look at Partnerships and communities during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Well-led.

We did not look at Learning, improvement and innovation during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Well-led.