Woodlands Ridge 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 good. At this assessment the rating has remained 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.

Regular staff meetings took place, and we saw minutes of these. The minutes showed that the meetings were used as an opportunity to keep staff informed of expected standards and shared learning as well as an opportunity for staff to raise any concerns. Daily head of department meetings took place, and we saw records of these as well. Staff told us morale amongst staff was “good” and that they enjoyed their roles. One staff member said, “Our aim is to look after people, and give them the best possible care that we can. The relatives are part of the family as well.”

Staff surveys had been carried out and the latest results showed high staff satisfaction levels

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.

Staff told us the management team were visible and accessible. They told us there was a named person on-call out of hours who they could ring if they needed advice. For example, one staff member said, “[Registered manager] does the walkarounds and asks if everything is alright a few times a day. We have our daily meeting as well. There is an on-call system if they’re not in; there is a rota in the staff room.”

All staff told us the management team were approachable and easy to talk to. Several staff told us the registered manager was particularly good at telling them when things had gone well, rather than when things hadn’t. For example, one staff member said, “She’s approachable, she’s fair minded, she’ll give you a compliment if she gets anything positive fed back. If you’ve done something good, she will always recognise it.”

A health professional spoke highly of the management team. They said, “[Registered manager is very helpful and knowledgeable. She has given me her email to make contact if I have any concerns.”

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

All people, their relatives and staff we spoke with felt they could raise concerns freely. For example, a relative said “I know the manager [name of registered manager]. She is very approachable, or I know I could speak to any member of staff. This is a very open place.”

Staff told us they were aware of the provider’s whistleblowing policy and felt confident to speak up if they had concerns about poor care. All staff told us they were reminded at staff meetings how to speak up.

Complaints and concerns were logged and investigated. The registered manager followed the duty of candour principles when dealing with complaints. The registered manager was open about the concerns leading up to this inspection and told us they felt confident a thorough investigation had been carried out.

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.

There was a diverse workforce in post. All the staff we spoke with felt they were treated fairly and equitably. For example, one staff member said, “We’re fantastic here. I can’t knock the staff I work with; all faiths mix together well. We are an amazing team. When I’ve been off, they’ve really supported me.”

The provider completed regular audits and had a clear system in place to monitor service delivery. However, the provider did not always demonstrate systems of accountability or good governance were consistently followed where actions were identified.

There was a schedule of audits and checks which were carried out on a regular basis. Information arising from these audits contributed to monthly manager action improvement and learning plans. We saw examples of these and how the information within, led to highlighting changes and improvements that were needed. The provider carried out regular assurance visits. Action plans were produced and this meant there was additional oversight at provider level.

However, at the time of the inspection although some of the shortfalls we noted had been identified, not all had. For example, the lack of person-centred PRN protocols, the inconsistency of mental capacity assessments for the use of sensors, contradictory care records in relation to the use of bed rails and the dementia friendly signage not being replaced after redecoration. Although there was minimal impact on people using the service, this did not assure us that the governance and oversight was as robust as it could be.

Daily walk around checks were carried out as well as regular spot checks; we saw records that showed these also took place out of hours and at weekends. No concerns had been noted.

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.

The service had good links with the local GP surgery and other multi-disciplinary services. Healthcare professionals we spoke with confirmed this and told us they had good working relationships with all staff.

The registered manager told us they were keen to make links with the local community such as getting local school children to visit in some way or other.

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 management team told us how they involved staff in discussions about improvements. For example, they told us they promoted a culture of reflection so that all aspects of incidents were reviewed and discussed. They told us, “We talk about incidents, and we do a debrief with staff if something happens. We do some reflecting with staff; for example, we might talk about how many staff were involved in a situation and whether that was too many staff which made the situation worse rather than better.” Staff we spoke with confirmed this and told us they were regularly asked for feedback on what could be done better. Throughout the inspection, the management team were receptive and responsive to our feedback.

Staff received regular training and updates, and records showed training compliance was high. Staff told us they could request additional training if required. For example, one staff member said, “If you need more training, then they will provide it. Or, if we have done the training but feel we need more, they will provide further training.”