Archived: Winsford Grange Care 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 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 inadequate. At this assessment we did not review enough quality statements to change the rating therefore the current rating remains inadequate. This meant there were widespread and significant shortfalls in leadership. Leaders and the culture they created did not assure the delivery of high-quality care.

The provider was found to be in breach of Regulation 17, relating to governance and oversight within the organisation. Additionally, the provider was in breach of Regulation 18, as staff did not receive sufficient training to support people safely.

This service scored 36 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

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

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.

The provider lacked sufficient systems for governance, and where systems were in place, they were not consistently followed. We found when concerns were identified by staff, these were not always recorded. For example, concerns about the lack of sensor mats were documented, but no actions were recorded to address them.

There had been a high turnover of staff in the senior management team. Although some processes were implemented, they were not consistently followed once the responsible person left.

There was a lack of oversight regarding accidents and incidents due to multiple records being maintained.

We identified 2 incidents that had not been recorded as incidents, meaning the registered manager was unaware and no investigation had been undertaken. This meant lessons were not learned, and no actions were taken to mitigate the risks.

The provider did not always notify the Care Quality Commission (CQC) of incidents that required reporting. This indicated limited understanding in relation to their regulatory responsibility, which had previously been raised with the provider. We asked the provider to submit numerous notifications following our assessment; however, they failed to do so.

Quality assurances systems were not robust enough and did not identify some of the concerns we identified during this assessment.

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.