Wood Cottage

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. This is the first assessment for this registered 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 68 (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 management team and staff demonstrated a commitment to person-centred care and improving outcomes for people. Staff described a supportive and open culture, and our conversations confirmed the home’s values were at the heart of their role. Staff were involved in regular team meetings, and the values of the home were regularly discussed. We were assured the provider guaranteed autistic people and people with a learning disability the choices, dignity, independence and good access to local communities most people take for granted.

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.

The nominated individual, registered manager and the service manager had the skills and commitment to support the home. There was a focus on genuine, positive outcomes for people, the development of staff and the quality of the service they led. The nominated individual was new in post and shared a wealth of ideas regarding enhancing further the governance of the service. The registered manager was approachable, visible and spoke passionately about the home’s journey of improvement. The service manager was relatively new in post, responsive and constructively took assessment feedback and acted responsively to actions identified. We received very positive feedback about the service managers approach, visibility and responsiveness, clear lines of communication with staff and relatives. Comments from staff included, “[Service manager] listens to what people need, things have improved and the two to one support has improved outcomes for people” and “[Registered manager] is supportive.” The registered manager and service manager felt supported by the provider and the wider teams who supported the home.

The provider fostered a positive culture where people felt they could speak up and their voice would be heard.The provider had a whistleblowing policy in place, which included clear guidance to support staff to ‘speak up’. Staff understood the processes to follow, should they have any concerns. The registered manager shared future plans to strengthen processes by including forums and speak out groups.

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 employed a diverse staff team. Human resource policies were in place to ensure staff understood their rights as an employee. All staff completed training in equality and diversity. The recruitment process was fair and inclusive, with health questionnaires completed to ensure the provider was aware of any reasonable adjustments required to support staff.

The provider did not always have clear systems of accountability or good governance. They did not always act on the best information about risk, performance and outcomes. There were audits in place to monitor the service, they were not always effective in addressing the matters in relation to the absence of regular reviews of care plans, support plans created with the involvement of people, relatives, advocates and staff, infection prevention and control in relation to cleanliness, environmental repairs required, lack of collaborative approaches in relation to mental capacity assessments and best interest decisions and ineffective oversight of ensuring staff have read care plans, risk assessments and behavioural support plans. Actions identified in the audits were not transferred to a service action plan for overall oversight.

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 demonstrated they valued and welcomed partnership working. Leaders had worked with people, their representatives and staff to build a culture which focused on enabling people to enjoy their lives. The registered manager was part of the local registered manager’s forum and valued the support this provided.

The provider did not always focus on continuous learning, innovation and improvement across the organisation and local system. For example, the provider did not have a quality assurance framework and areas for improvement identified in this assessment highlighted the need to adopt a robust framework to learn and improve from a quality monitoring perspective. However, the provider encouraged creative ways of delivering equality of experience, outcome and quality of life for people. Leaders shared they were currently developing a new care planning system to improve how they record, monitor, and review the support being delivered, ensuring information was more accessible and person-centred as well as an electronic quality assurance system to support the monitoring of the quality of care being delivered and identify opportunities for improvement.