Winslow House

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 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. The service was in continued breach of the legal regulation in relation to good governance.

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 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 a mission statement with the aims and objectives of the service. However, these were not widely known by staff or embedded in the service processes and delivery yet.

The provider was working to involve staff becoming champions in different areas of care and sharing good practice within the service. One staff member told us, “I’ve been encouraged to do infection control champion training.”

The provider did not have clear responsibilities, roles, systems of accountability and good governance. They did not act on the best information about risk, performance and outcomes, or share this securely with others when appropriate.

There was a lack of provider oversight and governance systems had been limited in ensuring high-quality safe care. The level of the improvements needed for the service required more input from the provider to support the management and staff in implementing and embedding change and fostering a positive culture within the service.

Whilst the service had started developing a governance programme, it had not had time to embed it fully and be effective. The provider did not continuously review and monitor its own service improvement plan. Whilst the provider was auditing particular areas of the service, it did not have full oversight of the service as a whole. This meant the provider was not identifying all areas for improvement we found during the assessment potentially putting people at risk of harm. We identified improvements were needed in staff training, staffing levels, risk management and the environment including infection prevention. During the assessment the provider updated their service improvement plan.

People and their relatives told us they felt safe and well cared for, but staffing levels could be improved. People and their relatives acknowledged the service was going through a period of change. A relative told us: “Generally speaking I am very happy with the staff, very much better now there are less agency staff, a definite improvement.” Staff said the service was improving and they were supported in their role. One staff member told us, “New management are finding their feet, things have changed and encouraging at the moment with a more positive culture.”

The provider fostered a positive culture where people felt they could speak up and their voice would be heard. All staff we spoke with told us they felt able to raise any concerns with the manager if they needed.Staff recognised the ongoing changes within the service. One staff member said, “Have seen things progress and get better. Communication is being worked on and getting better.Know needing more carers has been flagged, nearly at capacity with residents so it is noticeable.”

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.

The provider recognised staff contribution, celebrating birthdays and events. The service had a diverse workforce. The provider worked with its sister home in the local area to help staff members from overseas feel part of the team and supported. The provider had an equalities policy in place. Staff we spoke with told is they were treated fairly.

The provider did not have clear responsibilities, roles, systems of accountability and good governance. They did not act on the best information about risk, performance and outcomes, or share this securely with others when appropriate.

There was a lack of provider oversight and governance systems had been limited in ensuring high-quality safe care. The level of the improvements needed for the service required more input from the provider to support the management and staff in implementing and embedding change and fostering a positive culture within the service.

Whilst the service had started developing a governance programme, it had not had time to embed it fully and be effective. The provider did not continuously review and monitor its own service improvement plan. Whilst the provider was auditing particular areas of the service, it did not have full oversight of the service as a whole. This meant the provider was not identifying all areas for improvement we found during the assessment potentially putting people at risk of harm. We identified improvements were needed in staff training, staffing levels, risk management and the environment including infection prevention. During the assessment the provider updated their service improvement plan.

People and their relatives told us they felt safe and well cared for, but staffing levels could be improved. People and their relatives acknowledged the service was going through a period of change. A relative told us: “Generally speaking I am very happy with the staff, very much better now there are less agency staff, a definite improvement.” Staff said the service was improving and they were supported in their role. One staff member told us, “New management are finding their feet, things have changed and encouraging at the moment with a more positive culture.”

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 worked with the local community to provide access to a range of activities that promoted people’s wellbeing. One staff member told us, “Try and involve the local community with the activities in the home. We have a group of children that come in on Wednesdays to do music with residents. We also have a visit from an alpaca with a local farm.”

People told us they had access to services in the community and the service facilitated this. One person told us, “The chiropodist comes in, I go out to the optician, GP comes in if you need to see them. Teeth care, always asking have you cleaned your teeth.”

The provider did not always focus on continuous learning, innovation and improvement across the organisation and local system.

The provider had not ensured sufficient learning and improvement since the last inspection and not enough improvements had been made. Whilst we did identify shortfalls during this assessment, the provider was responsive to our findings and started to act on key areas of improvement. The provider wanted to improve the service and this was reflected in their vision for the service going forward. The provider had started implementing meetings, handovers for better communication between staff, supervision to support staff working together as a team and promoting the home’s values but this had not had time to be fully embed yet. The provider had recently started seeking people’s views to support the vision of the service going forward. One person told us, “‘I think things are developing, lots of change for staff but good on the whole.”