JBS Consult 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 this 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 68 (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.

The service’s mission was to maximise people quality of life ensure people are provided with care and support they deserve. Through records and feedback from staff and relative, we found people received personalised care from compassionate staff members.

Staff told us the culture within the service was positive and they were supported when needed. A staff member said, “I have been working for them 2 – 3 years. I like working for the company. The culture is good.”

Staff had a good understanding of the ethos of the service and were clear about their responsibilities. They understood their roles and told us the management team supported them.

The management team 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. A relative told us, “We have no concerns. It has been going well so far.”

Leaders did not always have the skills, knowledge and experience to lead effectively.

We found robust systems were not in place to ensure reviews and supervisions were taking place regularly. However, the registered manager told us that action had been taken already to ensure improvements were made in this area such as the service moving onto a digital system to ensure oversight of the service, reviews and records.

Staff were positive about the registered manager. A staff member told us, “[Registered manager] is reliable, communicates with us regularly and helps us.” The registered manager maintained regular communication with staff through telephone and routine check ins to support staff when needed. Feedback was also sought from staff on their operation delivery.

Relatives we spoke to were positive about the management. A relative told us, “[Registered manager] is very good and responsive. He communicates really well.”

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

A whistleblowing policy was in place that included details on how to raise concerns both internally and externally, which allowed staff freedom to speak up. Whistleblowing is the act of reporting wrongdoing, misconduct, or illegal activities within an organisation.

Systems were in place for staff to raise concerns internally and externally. Staff knew how to use the whistleblowing policy and understood their role and responsibilities of reporting concerns and knew who to go to if they needed to.

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.

Systems were in place for flexible working arrangements as shift plans showed staff were able to work flexibly. Staff were positive about the service and the management team valuing diversity.

The provider encouraged an open-door policy, allowing staff to raise concerns or suggestions comfortably.

The provider had a clear equality and diversity policy to ensure that neither staff nor people using the service were subjected to discrimination.

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.

Robust good governance systems were not in place to ensure there was oversight of care delivery.

The registered manager told us that they had completed audits on care plans and staff files but this was not recorded. The registered manager also told us the service would be moving onto a robust digital framework that would allow regular monitoring of the service such as on care plans, training and staff files to ensure there was robust oversight of the service provided.

Relatives and staff were very positive about the service and the care and support people received. A relative told us, “I have spoken to [registered manager] many times. He responds to any queries. You can call him anytime even out of office hours.” A staff member commented, “[Registered manager] supports me in my role, he is very good.”

The provider understood their duty to collaborate and work in partnership, so services worked seamlessly for people.

The registered manager and staff told us they worked in partnership with health and social professionals to ensure people were always in the best of health. Records confirmed people had access to social and health professionals and community services to ensure they were in the best of health.

The provider focused on continuous learning, innovation and improvement across the organisation and local system.

The service had systems in place for learning and to improve the quality of the service with feedback being sought from relatives and staff to ensure there was a culture of continuous improvement and to support the management team on enhancing overall service quality. A recent survey for people showed relatives were positive about the service.