Whitefield 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 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.

Leaders had a clear vision to deliver high-quality, person-centred care. The statement of purpose outlined the intention to provide a homely environment that was consistent, non-corporate, and focused on people as individuals. Staff expressed confidence in the leadership team and felt there was a supportive culture, meaning several had been in post for a considerable number of years.

Leaders and staff reported that a strong family‑run feel had been successfully created by the registered manager. This was evidenced as staff spoke positively about taking their time when supporting people. Feedback from people and their families showed that people were consistently happy with the care provided. Where suggestions for improvements had been made, these were listened to and acted upon. Staff spoke positively about taking their time when supporting people, and they were observed having meaningful and respectful interactions.

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 registered manager and senior staff were highly visible within the home. They were observed being actively involved and communicating with people. One family member stated, “The manager is excellent, we can speak to them anytime and we get emails and a newsletter.”

The provider ensured there was always appropriate managerial cover in place. This included a senior being available to provide advice and support to staff during the night and at weekends. Staff told us they felt well supported and received the supervision and guidance they required.

Leaders were knowledgeable about issues and priorities for the service; and felt confident in challenging poor practice if required. Leaders also had the opportunity to develop within their roles.

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

A whistleblowing policy was in place and was accessible to all staff. Staff were provided with a copy during induction, which they signed to confirm their understanding. The policy was regularly referenced during team meetings and one‑to‑one supervision sessions and was displayed throughout the home. This ensured staff were aware of how to raise concerns and felt confident doing so.

Staff described an open and transparent culture where concerns could be raised without fear. One person commented, “I doubt this is ever used. No one is fearful to speak. All feel able to talk to even the owners.” Staff were encouraged to offer suggestions during team meetings and supervision, particularly where they had concerns or felt changes were required.

Everyone we spoke with reported that the home was well run by the registered manager. They described the registered manager as very approachable and always available to talk to. Staff stated they worked well together as a team and were enthusiastic about their roles.

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.

Leaders provided flexible working arrangements to support staff with personal circumstances, including caring responsibilities and health needs. Reasonable adjustments had been implemented for some staff to support them in carrying out their roles effectively. This demonstrated a commitment to promoting equality and retaining an inclusive workforce.

When trialling a new digital system, leaders ensured all staff were involved in the process. The system was selected for its accessibility, recognising that some staff had dyslexia. The use of symbols and visual prompts supported learning and made the system easier to navigate, ensuring staff were not disadvantaged and could use the system confidently.

Leaders promoted fairness and equality in recruitment, induction, and ongoing development. There were clear processes in place to support staff to raise concerns related to equality, discrimination, or inclusion. Leaders fostered a culture where staff felt confident that any concerns would be taken seriously and addressed appropriately.

The provider did not always have effective systems in place to flag concerns, meaning they did not always act on the best information about risk, performance and outcomes. However, they did have clear responsibilities, roles, systems of accountability

Some short falls were not identified through these processes such as issues with medicines, environmental concerns and the improvements needed to Mental Capacity Assessments. Plans were promptly put into motion to review concerns, with the management team having clear delegated roles and responsibilities to achieve better outcomes. The provider met with senior managers on a regular basis to review areas of governance and further areas of development or improvement that had been identified in audits.

The provider had a business continuity plan, which covered most of the relevant areas. Extreme heat was noted to be a missing factor which has since been added to this policy.

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 provider worked consistently well with other health and social care agencies, and feedback from external services was extremely positive. They had developed strong relationships with a local agency to ensure the use of a consistent and familiar staffing pool.

The provider was also proactive in engaging with community and religious groups. This included visits from a local school, which people thoroughly enjoyed.

People were supported to take part in a range of activities, and photographs of these were displayed throughout the home. Families were encouraged and invited to participate in activities alongside people.

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 provider was proactive in learning and developing the service in partnership with other agencies, helping to develop and learn.

Managers had oversight of the service, including care standards, accidents, incidents, and concerns. Any areas of learning were shared with the team and action put in place to help drive improvements. The provider also encouraged staff to come up with creative solutions to address any potential concerns orareas of improvement that had been identified.