Jubilee 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

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 Good. At this assessment the rating has remained 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.

The service had regular team meetings, and handovers between each shift, to support the service team in working together. The staff team was working effectively together and we observed friendly, happy interactions between staff and managers.

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 told us they cared about people and the service. They showed enthusiasm for wanting to further improve the quality of the service. One person said, “I see the manager in her office and I have a chat with her. It’s so well run.”

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

There were policies and procedures, team meetings, and individual staff member meetings available to staff to raise any concerns and issues. The staff fed back effectively to the management team at the service.

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 registered manager and provider had delivered a supportive and inclusive working environment for the staff. There were equality and inclusion policies in place for the service to use.

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

The service had been effectively and consistently delivered for some years with good governance and direction from the provider. There was operational management support for the service’s leadership team, and the Directors of the company regularly visited the service and made themselves available to both people living there and the staff.

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 service was engaging with the community, and partners in the health and social care system. Partnerships with the health and social care system were effective. For example, the service said they were working effectively with the local health system in taking people directly from the local hospital into their care.

The provider did not always focus on continuous learning, innovation and improvement across the organisation and local system. They did not always encourage creative ways of delivering equality of experience, outcome and quality of life for people. They did not always actively contribute to safe, effective practice and research.

The service was not digitally linked to health and social care systems outside the home, including CQC. This made engagement and communication with the health and social care system outside the home more difficult.

Leaders in the home were aware that they needed to further develop their skills and knowledge in dementia care so that they can then use these skills in the development of the service.