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 changed to good. This meant 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.

At the last assessment we found staff had not always been included in the vision for the service and did not understand the provider’s aims and objectives for the service.

At this assessment we found staff were onboard with the provider’s vision and aims for the service and felt included. The management team were present on the floor and worked with the staff to deliver care for people, creating a sense of teamwork.

Staff told us, “It’s a homely atmosphere and staff really care about residents, we have a chat with people, and they enjoy this. They all have bigger rooms, lots of activities, we welcome family members.” Another said, “There is enough staff, the laundry can get busy but have other people who can carry on with it.”

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 led with integrity, openness and honesty.

At the last assessment in February 2025, we found the home lacked provider oversight and governance systems were not comprehensive. There was a lack of documentation in identifying areas for improvement and development.

At this assessment we found the provider and the new management team were working together to implement changes to have better oversight of the service. Whilst time was needed to fully reflect the benefits of these changes the provider was supporting staff, people and their relatives through the changes. Meetings were held with the staff people and relatives, to keep them updated on key changes and areas which needed improvement. A relative told us, “The atmosphere is very friendly and there is a desire to manage it as a family home.” And one person told us, “We do have monthly residents’ meetings and they let us know about any changes and we can have our say.”

The provider supported staff to maintain a work/life balance and ensured staff had adjustments in place to support them to carry out their role. One staff member told us, “Are doing a lot more, more staff, activities, children coming in to talk to the people. We start earlier 7am, we have

more time to spend with the residents, The manager [provider] appears 5 days a week and sometimes weekends. Senior carers will take the stress off you.”

Another said, “I have supervisions with [name] or [name]” and “Management is approachable. They would listen to me.”

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 did not always operate effective systems to monitor, assess and improve the quality of service they provided. Complete and contemporaneous records in respect of each person were not always maintained. Whilst processes were in place to monitor care plans, more robust systems were needed to ensure records were up to date.

The provider had worked to achieve a more robust governance team and were developing a quality team to give better oversight over the service since our last assessment. The provider had an ongoing action plan, and this was regularly reviewed however this did not always identify all of the areas we found during the assessment. For example, governance systems required improving to ensure they identified concerns found in relation to mental capacity, risk, records and environmental safety. The provider started to address our concerns during this assessment.

The provider acted on concerns raised during our last assessment about staffing and training. We saw a marked improvement in these areas and positive feedback from people and relatives recognising the changes made by the management team.

The service remained without a registered manager; we raised this with the provider who told us they intended to register as the manager over the next few months. We have asked for updates on this progress.

People and their relatives told us the service was well managed. One person told us, “‘At the very least it’s managed extremely well.” And a relative said, “The managers are getting out on the shop floor now. I am more confident now that it’s not just lip service, much better response if something happens.”

Whilst the provider had been proactive in seeking external support in infection prevention and control and in promoting a safe environment this needed further time to cement fully into the service.

The provider had good working relations with external professionals and met regularly to provide a more holistic service for people.

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.

The provider focused on continuous learning, innovation and improvement across the organisation and local system.

At the last assessment we found staff were not suitably skilled and trained to safely support people and identify potential risks for people. For example, staff had not received relevant training to identify risks with the environment and infection control. The provider had since invested in sourcing support and guidance, for example in medicines and infection prevention and control to guide improvements at the service. The management team were open to support and wanted to get things right for the people who lived there. They had a programme of works for improving the building and were looking at different models on how best they could govern the service. The provider was ‘hands on’ and this helped to bring a sense of cohesion to the staff team. Staff felt supported. People and their relatives recognised the improvements the provider was making. One relative told us, “I think the décor could be improved, they are trying to update it slowly doing the rooms and corridors. They have improved a lot but its ongoing.” And another told us, “‘Not just safe, it’s the dementia care, wellbeing and the ability to hold a conversation improved learning and peoples’ happiness.”