Woodview House Nursing Home

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 requires improvement. At this assessment the rating has changed to good.

This meant the service was consistently managed and well-led. Leaders and the culture they created promoted high-quality, person-centred care.

At our last assessment the service was in breach of legal regulation in relation to governance at the service. At this assessment we found improvements had been made and the service was no longer in breach of the legal regulation.

This service scored 75 (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 provider had organisational values of wellness, happiness and kindness and we saw these values were reflected across all aspects of the home.

Staff told us the registered manager had driven changes at the home since they had been there and there was a strong teamwork ethic.

Managers and staff were provided with training and ongoing support to develop and improve their knowledge in relation to equality and equity in care and to manage the challenges which can arise in achieving this. Staff also received training which supported them to uphold people’s human rights when in care.

The provider had arrangements to monitor progress and success against its own strategies and goals and those of the wider adult social care community. Where there were risks to these not being met, action was taken to reduce and mitigate these risks.

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.

Leaders were knowledgeable about the issues and priorities of the service. For example, the registered manager said the provider was positive and open about making changes to the decoration of the home, and upgrades had already been completed in some areas.

The registered manager was passionate about her role in driving improvements at the service.

People, their relatives and professionals spoke warmly about the approach of the leadership of the home. One relative said, “[registered manager] is lovely, I can ask them anything and they takes time, listens to us and responds.” One staff member said, “The manager is always available and does their job well. It’s like a family here.” One professional said, “I find the management very welcoming and approachable, the home when I visit is not chaotic but a calm environment and have witnessed Manager supporting and working together with the staff.”

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

All the staff we spoke to were aware of the process to raise issues and how to contact the provider if they needed to. A staff member told us, “I would have no concerns in speaking up if I thought there was an issue, and I know I would be listened to.”

People, relatives and staff were given the opportunity to provide feedback about the service through surveys and the results were used by management to identify and implement improvements.

People and their relatives were also comfortable they could raise concerns. A relative told us, “We haven’t had any reason to raise a safety concern but if we do have things we want to discuss or ‘niggles’ they are very warm and open, they listen and it’s a conversation they’re not stand offish we feel comfortable in talking to them about anything they listen, act and respond straight away, they always make time.”

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 were positive about the culture at the home. One staff member said, “We are a really good team, and everyone is treated equally.”

The provider had clear responsibilities, roles, systems of accountability and good governance. They used these to manage and deliver good quality, sustainable care, treatment and support. They acted on the best information about risk, performance and outcomes, and shared this securely with others when appropriate.

At the last assessment we found governance systems were ineffective at identifying where improvements were required at the service. At this assessment we found improvements had been made and governance systems were effective.

Management at the home and the provider carried out a range of audits and there was evidence when concerns were found they were addressed in a timely manner.

Regulatory responsibilities were understood by leaders and there were robust arrangements for the availability, integrity and confidentiality of data, records and data management systems. The registered manager stated they received consistent and positive support from the provider.

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.

Appropriate referrals for specialist and health support were made for people, where relevant and needed. One professional said, “I have no concerns working in collaboration with the care team and Home Manager.”

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.

Processes were in place to learn and review when things went wrong. Staff and leaders discussed incidents together.

The provider and registered manager encouraged reflection and were open to learning.