Weldon Homecare Services Limited

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. This is the first assessment for this service. This key question has been rated 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.There was an on-call system for staff to use if needed for things that happened when management were not on site. Feedback from staff showed them to be a committed, compassionate, and person-centred team. Staff demonstrated strong relationships with people, they had a good understanding of individual needs, and a proactive approach to safety and wellbeing. A staff member when asked what they liked most about their role said, “Being taken seriously and being valued, properly valued. My work is appreciated. Going above and beyond is always appreciated and not taken for granted.” Another staff member said, “Everyone is different, everyone has their own issues, and you get to go in and make their life better. You get to meet their families and hear their stories, and it is an interesting thing to be doing.”

The registered manager and staff knew people very well and understood the challenges they faced. Support was tailored to meet individual needs. The registered manager who is also the nominated individual told us, “I don't want to go much more than 5 more staff and another couple of customers. I want to keep things person centred and person oriented. I know staff members families' names and the same with customers. I want to be able to stay involved and stay in contact.” This meant people benefitted from being supported by a team that worked together with shared values and a clear focus on delivering high-quality care.

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 openness and honesty.Managers and team leaders maintained a visible and supportive presence to their team who worked remotely, with visits, regular telephone contact, and wellbeing check-ins. When the registered manager was asked what they like most about their role, they said, “I can make sure that we actually get the standard of care for the customers. If we look after the carers, they look after the customers.”

Most staff told us they felt supported by the management team who found them to be skilled and knowledgeable. One staff member said, “My manager is a good trainer and a good manager. Any form of risk they deal with. Great communication with us as well. If I ask for support or training, I get it, this is a sign of a very good manger. They have vast experience in care.” Another staff member said, “They [management] are always at the end of the phone whenever you have an issue. The door is always open so you can come in at any time.”

The provider fostered a positive culture where people felt they could speak up and their voice would be heard.A culture of openness enabled staff to raise concerns without fear. Most staff felt leaders responded constructively to feedback and encouraged honest communication. The provider had relevant policies in place to support people and staff with speaking up. Staff we spoke with were aware of the whistleblowing/speaking up policy and felt able to use this.

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 had an equality and diversity policy, and staff received regular training to aid understanding and development. Most staff we spoke with had no concerns about equality and diversity or inclusion. Staff were able to share examples of where they had been supported with reasonable adjustments.

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.

A visiting professional told us, “I consistently found both [Director and registered manager] to be highly knowledgeable about the individuals they support. They have a clear understanding of visit frequencies, the purpose of each call, and the support delivered. They have always been able to access and share information from their records when needed, which reflects robust care planning and effective record keeping.”

Most staff felt supported and valued. The provider listened to our feedback and acted promptly to resolve any issues we identified, reducing the potential risk on people. The provider made notifications in line with their regulatory responsibilities. Regular spot-checks with staff were carried out to monitor standards and outcomes for people. This meant people received consistently high-quality, person-centred care from a stable and well-managed team that was committed to meeting their needs now and in the future.

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 registered manager told us how they worked with local GP’s and nurses to improve people’s care. In one example they liaised with a local day centre including having meetings with them to help a person attend for as long as possible alongside their health needs changing.

All professionals we spoke with for feedback about the service agreed the provider was good to work with and took timely action when needed. One professional said, “If following visits I find changes need to be made [registered manager] is very responsive and positive about recommendations I have given, they are good at communicating while ever I am working with people and I always find that they work in the best interests of all involved.”

Another professional said, “Although I cannot recommend care providers in my professional capacity, I can say that if I personally required support for a family member, Weldon Homecare would be among the top three providers I would consider contacting.”

The provider also advertised on local radio and had worked with the local newspaper in producing an advert but also in having news articles published about the work they had done, including an article where a staff member had saved someone’s life using CPR. They were sponsors for the local under 13’s football team and were proud that their kit goes to a country in Africa to use at the end of each football season.

The provider did not always encourage creative ways of delivering equality of experience, outcome, and quality of life for people.

The service did not have routine systems in place to support learning and continuous improvement. Formal team meetings were not routinely held, however there were still opportunities for staff to discuss incidents, share learning or review changes in practice on a 1 to 1 basis. The provider had gathered feedback, but this was not done consistently which reduced their ability to identify themes or areas for development.

Learning tended to be reactive rather than proactive, occurring only after issues were identified rather than through planned monitoring, reflection, or quality‑improvement processes. This meant the service did not have a consistent framework for embedding learning or driving improvement.

Although structured methods such as surveys or team meetings had not been used recently, managers maintained regular informal 1:1 conversation with staff. Most staff told us they felt listened to, and managers acted promptly when concerns were raised. However, this did not amount to a consistent or proactive approach to continuous improvement. Following our assessment, the registered manager told us they planned to review their processes to create more opportunities for learning.

The provider used a digital care record and call‑monitoring system, which helped keep people’s personal data secure. Staff were confident in using the system, and the registered manager reviewed late calls or discrepancies daily.