Archived: Waltham House Limited Also known as Oasis Care

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 required improvement. At this assessment the rating has remained 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.

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 did not have a clear shared vision, strategy and culture which was based on transparency, equity, equality and human rights, diversity and inclusion, and engagement. They did not always understand the challenges and the needs of people and their communities.

Staff told us they did not have opportunity to collaborate to share ideas and drive improvements. No evidence was provided to show how feedback was gathered or used to drive service improvements.

Not all leaders understood the context in which the provider delivered care, treatment and support. They did not always embody the culture and values of their workforce and organisation. Leaders did not always have the skills, knowledge, experience and credibility to lead effectively.

The registered manager was knowledgeable about people’s individual needs and offered support to the team. Staff told us they felt supported and valued by the registered manager, understood their roles and responsibilities, and could request support when needed. However, we found gaps in audits and record keeping, this meant we could not be assured the provider had the knowledge, skills or experience to lead effectively.

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

People, relatives and staff told us they felt comfortable to speak up and raise concerns, if they needed to. Comments from relatives included, “Good, based on my limited experience so far. Everything I’ve asked for they have done”.

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.

We received no negative feedback around equality, diversity and inclusion. The registered manager put reasonable adjustments in place for staff, such as flexible work requests to observe religious beliefs. Comments from staff included, “She is quite flexible you just have to give her notice” and “She’s one of the best bosses I’ve had”.

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.

Governance systems were in place in the service, however we found not all areas of care records had the appropriate quality checks in place to ensure these were accurate and to a consistently good standard. For example, audits were not in place to review the quality, safety and accuracy of all care plans or medication, on a regular basis.

Care plans lacked detail and were not person-centred, they were not reviewed regularly and when changes to peoples needs occurred these records did not always have dates. This meant audit records were not robust enough to ensure people were safe and supported to meet their individual needs.

The provider did not always understand their duty to collaborate and work in partnership, so services worked seamlessly for people. We could not be assured people’s information when shared was accurate and up to date, because there was a lack of detail on care plans and care plan reviews did not have the dates the reviews had taken place. This meant people may have been at risk of receiving the incorrect care and support from partners.

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.

Staff told us they did not have team meetings with the registered manager. We received mixed feedback from people and staff. Comments from staff included, “I feel like if anything needs to be raised it’s in the [mobile messaging app] we don’t have staff meetings where everyone has a chat” and “I try to bring ideas from past jobs, they are going to look into it”.

Gaps in oversight meant staff did not always receive the level of direction required to ensure the service was managed consistently and safely.