Jireh Homecare

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.

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 Registered Manager described a clear vision centred on “Empowering People.” This focuses on supporting people, staff and families to feel confident, respected and involved. The service prioritises dignified, person‑centred care, supporting people to remain at home for as long as possible and ensuring any transitions in care are well planned and supported.

There was a positive and inclusive culture within the service. People told us staff recognised their individual preferences and limitations, and that care and support were provided in ways that reflected how they wished to be supported.

Staff described training and professional development as a priority, with the registered manager focused on maintaining high standards of care. Regular staff meetings were held, which provided opportunities to discuss and reinforce the provider’s values. Staff spoke very positively about the culture within the service. One staff member said, “I love working here. We are a great team the managers, seniors and carers. Our focus is the people we care for.”

Staff consistently described the organisation as supportive. One staff member told us, “We work together as a team. If we face issues, we come together to solve them.” Another said, “There is a positive work environment; everyone is treated with dignity and respect.”

The provider’s service user guide clearly set out the service’s aims and objectives. These focused on delivering high‑quality care while promoting independence, choice and control, and ensuring care was person‑centred and delivered with dignity and respect.

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 service was managed by a registered manager and a compliance manager, both of whom were experienced and demonstrated a good understanding of people’s assessed needs. A formal on‑call system was in place, ensuring staff knew who to contact when management staff were not working, including during out‑of‑hours periods.

The registered manager demonstrated a strong commitment to delivering high‑quality care. This was reflected in the positive feedback received from people using the service and from staff. At the time of the assessment, the registered manager was providing specific oversight and support for people with a learning disability and autistic people, ensuring staff had the appropriate training, skills and competence to meet their needs safely and effectively.

Staff spoke positively about the leadership team and described managers as approachable and supportive. One staff member told us, “I have never had any issues with our manager. You can go and talk about anything.” Staff confirmed managers had the right skills, knowledge and experience and described them as leading by example. One staff member said, “[Managers] lead by example and role‑model the correct behaviours. Their actions match what they say, and it comes across very strongly how much they care about people.”

Managers undertook ongoing training and attended webinars to continually develop their skills and knowledge. Managers had also achieved Train the Trainer certification, which enabled them to deliver training to staff within the office setting.

The registered manager explained that the compliance manager had expressed a clear interest in progressing to the registered manager role while the current registered manager stepped back from day‑to‑day operational oversight for personal reasons and confirmed they would continue to play an active role as the Nominated Individual to ensure continuity. The compliance manager had been supported through additional training, had recently achieved a Level 5 qualification in Health and Social Care, and was preparing for CQC registration, demonstrating effective leadership succession planning and ongoing oversight of the service.

Leadership succession was well planned. The compliance manager was being developed to progress to registered manager, while the current registered manager continued as Nominated Individual to maintain continuity and oversight.

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

People told us they knew senior staff and office staff and felt confident approaching them if needed. One person said, “I know the seniors and managers. I know I could phone the office, and they would come to me.” This showed people felt supported and comfortable raising concerns or asking for help.

Staff told us they felt confident to speak up and raise concerns. The whistleblowing policy was clear, accessible and aligned with national guidance. Staff demonstrated a good understanding of what issues to report and how to do so. Staff said they did not fear repercussions and felt leaders promoted an open and supportive culture. One staff member told us, “We can speak openly; there is always a manager on duty if we need support.”

Staff said they felt able to raise concerns or suggestions directly with the registered manager, who they described as responsive and approachable. Processes were in place to support staff to speak up, including staff meetings and regular supervision sessions. One staff member said, “I do feel I could speak up if I had a concern and I know I would be listened to.”

Team meetings and weekly drop‑in sessions were also arranged to provide staff with regular opportunities to discuss concerns, share feedback and suggest improvements to care.

Staff demonstrated a clear understanding of the term ‘freedom to speak up’ and how this applied in practice. Staff consistently told us managers were open to feedback and encouraged open communication. One staff member said, “Staff can speak openly and are listened 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.

Staff completed equality and diversity training to support their understanding of inclusive working practices and to help ensure the workplace was respectful and fair. This training supported staff to recognise and respond appropriately to the diverse needs of colleagues and people using the service.

Staff spoke positively about their colleagues, managers and the organisation. We received no concerns about how staff were treated. One staff member told us, “I have found that it’s a really good company to work for.”

Staff members’ rights were clearly detailed in the employee handbook, including information about flexible working arrangements. One staff member explained how the service had supported them to work flexibly so they could attend university, while others confirmed they were able to work patterns that accommodated family commitments. The handbook also included details of the provider’s equal opportunities, anti‑harassment and anti‑discrimination policies.

Staff told us training opportunities, support and career development were provided fairly. They described leaders as inclusive and understanding of their circumstances, which supported a sense of belonging and contributed to staff morale and retention.

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, or share this securely with others when appropriate.

The provider had systems in place to monitor and review the quality of care. Quality satisfaction surveys had been completed; however, these initially relied mostly on closed yes/no questions, which limited the depth of feedback. The provider recognised this and responded appropriately by revising the survey questions to be more open and interactive, enabling people’s experiences, views and outcomes to be better captured.

People and relatives consistently told us the service was well managed. All relatives spoken with knew who to contact at the service and described management as approachable, accessible and responsive. They felt listened to and said the service responded positively to their queries and concerns.

The registered manager and deputy manager demonstrated a clear understanding of their roles and responsibilities and were able to describe how governance arrangements supported oversight of the service. Following a recent local authority monitoring visit, managers strengthened governance systems by introducing performance dashboards to provide oversight of audits, quality indicators and service risks. At the time of inspection, these arrangements were in the early stages of implementation and continued to be embedded; however, inspectors were assured managers were actively using this information to inform oversight and drive improvement.

The registered manager routinely monitored the staff training matrix to ensure staff remained up to date with mandatory training. Care plans and risk assessments were reviewed regularly to reflect people’s current needs, and we saw evidence that these reviews supported safe and appropriate care delivery.

Staff told us they felt well supported and said training and guidance enabled them to provide safe and effective care.

The provider explained their existing electronic care planning system had been enhanced but did not fully meet the service’s audit and reporting needs. In response, the provider had invested in a new electronic care planning system to strengthen governance, quality monitoring and data analysis. Call monitoring and rota management would remain on the existing system, with planned integration of both systems. Risks, service performance and progress were discussed and recorded during management meetings.

Quality assurance processes included staff observations, spot checks, competency checks following training, annual surveys and the review of feedback. This information was used to monitor care quality and support continuous improvement.

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.

Relatives described effective partnership working, supported by regular and open communication. All relatives spoken with knew how to contact the registered manager and felt confident doing so. The registered manager completed needs assessments and developed people’s care plans in partnership with relatives where appropriate. These plans were reviewed regularly, and quality checks were carried out to ensure care continued to meet people’s needs.

The registered manager liaised with health and social care professionals when required to ensure people received appropriate support, particularly where there were concerns about changes in health or wellbeing. This included working with GPs, district nursing teams and other specialists to coordinate care.

The provider had established positive working relationships with local health and social care partners and sought advice and support on people’s behalf when needed. Managers also shared learning and good practice through local forums and professional networks, supporting joint working and service development.

Staff supported people to access community groups and day services to improve outcomes and promote social inclusion. People were supported to remain connected to their communities in ways that were meaningful to them, such as attending day opportunities, local park or maintaining established routines. Relatives confirmed the service worked well with them and external professionals to help people remain part of their wider community networks.

The provider maintained strong and effective partnerships with local authority commissioners. Regular communication and review meetings took place to discuss people’s needs, outcomes and service performance. For example, the provider worked closely with commissioners to review and adjust care packages where people’s needs had changed, ensuring care remained safe, appropriate and well‑coordinated for people funded by the local authority.

The provider focused on continuous learning, innovation and improvement across the organisation and local system. They encouraged creative ways of delivering equality of experience, outcome and quality of life for people. They actively contributed to safe, effective practice and research.

The service demonstrated a commitment to learning and continuous improvement. Managers regularly reviewed feedback from people, relatives, staff and professionals and used this information to identify areas for development and strengthen service delivery. The service supported people with a learning disability and autism and was aware of current best practice guidance including right support, right care, right culture. We saw and records confirmed people’s independence was promoted, and people were supported to have goals and enjoy a full life. For example, people were supported to enjoy a range of leisure activities, days out and holidays. People were supported to do everyday tasks and their independence promoted.

Where learning needs were identified, action was taken to improve practice. This included changes to quality assurance processes, care planning systems and staff training arrangements to better reflect people’s needs and improve oversight. Managers described how learning from incidents, feedback and local authority monitoring visits was shared and used to inform improvements.

The provider was open to innovation and had invested in strengthening digital systems to support governance, communication and care delivery. This included introducing enhanced dashboards and a new electronic care planning system to improve data analysis, auditing and responsiveness. While some systems were still being embedded, leaders demonstrated a proactive approach to improving efficiency and care quality.

Staff were encouraged to share ideas and contribute to service improvements through supervision, team meetings and open communication with managers. Managers also shared learning and good practice through external forums and partnership working, supporting ongoing development and improvement across the service.