Jigsaw Creative Care 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

We observed a positive caring culture. However, at times staff had used overprotective practices which impacted on people’s choices and rights. Conflicts of interest between staff must be declared and managed to aid transparency. The provider accepted relationships between some staff could be a barrier to staff and people speaking out. Professional boundaries with people had not always been maintained by staff. Confidential personal information had not always been shared safely and in line with the Data Protection Act. A range of governance systems and audits were used to monitor quality and risks.

This service scored 54 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

Concerns were raised to CQC about a breach of professional boundaries between staff and people and about conflicts of interest between some senior managers. The provider was open with us about the relationships between some of the senior leadership team. The provider agreed they need to consider how they encourage people and staff to speak up when staff relationships may be a barrier. A healthcare professional told us ‘Jigsaw are very open to suggestions, ideas and feedback provided’. Another said, ‘Jigsaw have been working collaboratively with Wokingham and have a very good working relationship and always seek advice and ask questions when needed,’ and ‘the management team are committed to supporting some individuals that other care providers would be reluctant to support.’ The provider had an agreed organisational vision and set of values, which were based on creating a person-centred environment for people with complex needs and supporting them to achieve their aspirations, in line with Right support, right care, right culture. The provider told us the vision and values of the organisation were discussed with staff during their induction. One of the registered managers had carried out a Professionalism and Cultural Transformation (PACT) exercise with staff, with the aim of establishing professional attitudes and culture among the team. Staff told us they were well-supported by their managers. One member of staff said of the management team, "They have always been very supportive." Another member of staff told us, "They work as a team. Their response is always good."

Concerns were raised to CQC about data protection, about personal information being shared over social media. We saw examples of personal information being shared over social media without an appropriate framework to protect people’s privacy. The provider had a conflict-of-interest policy which was dated May 2024 after being recently reviewed. Staff had to disclose and record any conflict of interest and a management plan would be written to mitigate any conflict. Professionals told us that the provider had not always declared conflicts of interest.

We did not look at Capable, compassionate and inclusive leaders during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Well-led.

We did not look at Freedom to speak up during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Well-led.

We did not look at Workforce equality, diversity and inclusion during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Well-led.

Support was available to staff out of hours via a managers on call rota. A manager told us they and their colleagues worked together to ensure management support was always available to staff, saying, "Everyone works very well together on that. It is very fair. It works really well." A staff member told us, “I think the team is very committed and works well together. If there is an issue, we try to be transparent and resolve it.” Another said, “The senior leadership encouraged me to develop my career and supported me when I did not know anything,” Staff we spoke with knew who the managers were and said they would report any concerns to the management team. One of the registered managers carried out spot checks of staff practice and gave feedback to improve staff practice.

Feedback from relatives about the management of the service was mixed. Some relatives said they thought the service was well run and one described the leadership team as ‘approachable’. Most relatives we spoke with were satisfied with the communication between them and the provider. The provider used email, calls, and WhatsApp. Relatives told us they were asked for feedback and attended yearly review meeting with the provider. Relatives described staff as ‘professional’ ‘responsive’ and ‘caring.’ One relative said, “The team communicate well with me, if there are any incidents I am informed immediately.” However, some relatives said communication from the provider could be improved. They said they had requested information and had not received it and had to ‘chase’ the provider. Social care professionals told us they had requested some policies during a visit to review the service. They said the provider took up to 10 days to provide some of the documents which should have been readily available. Since then, the provider had reviewed and updated some of the policies. Weekly governance meetings took place involving the provider, the two registered managers, the safeguarding lead, and the finance manager. The provider told us, "There is a set agenda. We discuss the services, any safeguarding, any major incidents, any new services being developed." The provider sent us a variety of audits which we reviewed off site. Managers carried out checks of all areas including medicines, various records, and the environment. The provider used an electronic system to monitor incidents, accidents and complaints.

We did not look at Partnerships and communities during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Well-led.

We did not look at Learning, improvement and innovation during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Well-led.