JADE Healthcare Services

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 home care service. This key question has been rated requires improvement.

This meant the management and leadership was inconsistent. Leaders and the culture they created did not always support the delivery of high-quality, person-centred care.

The service was in breach of legal regulation in relation to good governance. We have asked the provider to take action to address the concerns found.

This service scored 57 (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 and strategy; however, it was not embedded into governance systems.

There was no evidence the service’s shared vision, values or goals were shared with staff, and we found systemic and widespread failings in the management of the service, which meant the provider did not facilitate an effective learning culture.

The provider told us they engaged in regular conversations with people, relatives and staff. However, it was not clear how their feedback had been used to improve the service provided. We saw evidence the provided had analysed the feedback and made an action plan on the issues found, however these had not been implemented.

The provider acknowledged during discussions that some areas of the service required improvement and further development. They responded positively to CQC feedback which demonstrated a commitment to ensuring the culture and delivery of the service met regulatory requirements.

Leaders did not consistently demonstrate a clear understanding of the context in which the provider delivered care, treatment and support. We found that not all leaders effectively modelled or promoted the organisation’s values or the culture expected within the service.

Leaders of the service did not demonstrate how they used feedback and systems to evaluate and improve the service. Leaders had gaps in strategic oversight or awareness of their responsibility to comply with regulatory standards in order to deliver safe care for those who used the service.

Despite these concerns, we found evidence of inclusive leadership at some levels within the service. Care staff spoke positively about the registered manager and told us they felt supported and able to seek advice when needed. They described the registered manager as approachable and accessible, and reported valuing the support they received. However, these strengths were not sufficient to offset the wider shortfalls in leadership capability and governance across the service.

The provider had systems and process for people and their relatives, and care staff to speak up and share their concerns. Care staff were aware of these and told us they felt confident speaking with the registered manager if required.

The provider had a freedom to speak up policy in place, and staff knew how to access this.

Leaders at the service demonstrated a strong commitment to promoting equality, diversity and inclusion within the workforce. Staff consistently told us they felt respected, valued and treated fairly, regardless of their background or personal characteristics. The culture within the service was open, inclusive and aligned with the provider’s values.

Staff reported they were encouraged to discuss individual needs, and reasonable adjustments were made promptly where required.

Overall, the service fostered an inclusive and supportive culture where diversity was recognised as a strength. Staff felt empowered, valued and respected, which had a positive impact on the quality of care delivered to people using the service.

Governance and management arrangements in the service were inadequate. Leaders did not have clear oversight of care delivery, and lines of accountability were poorly defined. As a result, the provider failed to ensure safe and consistent care in people’s homes.

Quality monitoring systems were either absent or ineffective. Audits did not identify the concerns we found during our assessment, including significant issues within care plans. These gaps in service delivery meant staff were at risk of providing incorrect care, placing people at potential risk of harm.

The provider did not demonstrate sufficient understanding of their legal responsibilities, including safeguarding, safe recruitment and maintaining accurate records. Risk management processes were weak, and incidents were not reviewed to identify themes or drive learning.

Overall, the lack of robust governance meant leaders did not have reliable information about the service’s performance or the quality of care people were receiving. This resulted in an unsafe and poorly managed domiciliary care service.

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. This included doctors, district nurses and falls teams where appropriate.

The provider did not consistently promote continuous learning or improvement. Opportunities to develop innovative approaches to enhance people’s experience and outcomes were not fully explored, and there was limited contribution to wider learning or good practice.

Systems to support learning when things went wrong were not effective. Incidents and audits did not reliably identify the concerns we found during the assessment, and there was little evidence of lessons being learned or changes being made to reduce future risks.

The service lacked a robust approach to measuring or evaluating performance, meaning leaders could not be assured that outcomes were consistently positive or safe. People, relatives and staff were not routinely involved in shaping improvements, limiting the provider’s ability to learn and develop the service effectively.