• Services in your home
  • Homecare service

JADE Healthcare Services

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

Mercury House, Shipstones Business Centre, North Gate, Nottingham, Nottinghamshire, NG7 7FN (0115) 964 8317

Provided and run by:
JADE Healthcare Services Ltd

Assessment report published 23 February 2026

On this page

Effective

Requires improvement

26 January 2026

Effective – this means we looked for evidence that people’s care, treatment and support achieved good outcomes and promoted a good quality of life, based on best available evidence.

This is the first assessment for this home care service. This key question has been rated requires improvement

This meant the effectiveness of people’s care, treatment and support did not always achieve good outcomes or was inconsistent.

This service scored 58 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

Assessing needs

Score: 2

The provider did not always make sure people’s care and treatment were effective because they did not always check and discuss people’s health, care, wellbeing and communication needs with them.

The provider did not always make sure people’s care and treatment was effective because they did not always check and update care plans to provide staff with effective and current guidance on people’s health needs. Care plans we reviewed contained out of date or incorrect information with regards to people’s needs.

Staff told us they were updated on changes to people’s needs via a group messaging service.

People and their relatives told us they had been involved in discussions about their or their loved one’s care needs when they first started receiving support. People also told us they were kept up to date with changes and were consulted when amendments were needed to their care and support. However, this was not demonstrated within care plan documents.

Delivering evidence-based care and treatment

Score: 2

The provider did not always plan and deliver people’s care and treatment with them, including what was important and mattered to them.

People’s risk assessments and care plans did not always reflect best practice guidance issued by The National Institute of Health and Social Care Excellence (NICE) or the provider’s own policies for supporting people with specific health care needs, such as diabetes. NICE guidelines recommend home care providers ensure staff understand common conditions affecting people using home care services, for example, diabetes, neurological and health conditions, and physical disabilities and sensory impairments. We found people did not always have care plans in place to provide staff with clear information and guidance on how to support people they visited living with diabetes. This meant people were at risk of receiving incorrect or unsafe care and treatment.

How staff, teams and services work together

Score: 2

The provider did not always work well across teams and services to support people. They did not always share their assessment of people’s needs when people moved between different services.

People’s needs and risks had not always been assessed to enable full and accurate information to be shared with other teams or other professionals should an emergency occur. There was a lack of documentation to share with services, such as paramedics, in case of emergency. Evidence of communication with health and social care professionals was minimal and therefore impacted upon staff knowledge of the people they supported. Information was shared in a messaging group so staff were updated; however, information shared could easily be missed meaning that there was a risk of incorrect and unsafe care being provided.

Supporting people to live healthier lives

Score: 3

The provider supported people to manage their health and wellbeing to maximise their independence, choice and control. Staff supported people to live healthier lives and where possible, reduce their future needs for care and support.

People consistently reported receiving appropriate support with meals and hydration. Staff asked about meal preferences, prepared food safely, and ensured people had access to drinks. Feedback highlighted good communication and attentiveness, especially for people who were cared for in bed.

One family member told us staff prepared microwave meals for their relative and were also focused on the person’s hydration. The family member said that they have seen staff be very interactive when providing care and support and that they had the same group of carers who really knew the person.

Monitoring and improving outcomes

Score: 2

The provider did not always routinely monitor people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it.

The systems in place to keep track of people’s needs and risks were not robust. People’s needs and risks were not properly recorded. Regular reviews of people’s risks were not completed in a structured or consistent way to enable changes to be identified and monitored.

People told us that they were involved in care plan reviews; however, documentation did not always reflect this and care plans were not always updated when people’s needs or the support they received had changed. This meant people were at risk of receiving incorrect care and supporting, placing them at risk of harm.

 

The provider told people about their rights around consent and respected these when delivering person-centred care and treatment.

There was a policy in place to guide staff on how to assess people’s capacity to make decisions in accordance with the Mental Capacity Act (2005).

The registered manager and staff understood the importance of gaining consent prior to supporting people with personal care. One person told us that staff are led by them and that staff always ask before doing anything. The person told us, “They ask me every time they’re here if they can put the light on.”

Staff told us they received training on mental capacity and demonstrated and understood how they used this when caring for people. One staff member told us, “I have received training in the Mental Capacity Act, and I was taught to act in the best interest of the person who might lack capacity. I always ask for consent before delivering personal care, I promote independence by involving them to do tasks they can do. I always ask politely what their choices of meals might be or I present all the choices available so that they can choose what they might want to eat.”