Windward 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 the service was consistently managed and well-led. Leaders and the culture they created promoted high-quality, person-centred care.

The service was previously in breach of legal regulations in relation to management and governance of the service. The new management of the service had ensured the service was now being well led and this regulation was now complied with.

This service scored 75 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

The service 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 and registered manager had a vision and desired culture to share with the service’s staff team. The staff team now had a good culture and worked together to deliver the best outcomes possible for people using the service.

The service 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 service has had permanent leadership for some months following a period of leadership changes. They understood the context in which the service delivered care, treatment and support. The present leaders were visible within the service and led by example to their staff team, demonstrating inclusive behaviours.

People spoke highly of the managers now at the service. One person said, “I know the (registered) manager. There’s been a change in the management here (from before). This one seems to be on the ball. She will speak and is always cheerful and asks how you are. She’s very hands on.” Another person said, “The managers are fairly new, but they are very nice. You see them walking around and (they) will come in (to see you) if there is a problem.”

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

The service was fostering a positive culture where people, their relatives and staff could speak up and their voice would be heard. Staff were receiving supervision, and meetings with people and staff were taking place. Any complaints were being appropriately investigated to ensure issues were always fully addressed. People, and relatives, were confident if they raised concerns to the service these would be effectively addressed by leaders of the service.

The service valued diversity in their workforce. They worked towards an inclusive and fair culture by improving equality and equity for people who work for them.

The provider valued diversity in their workforce. They had policies and procedures that directed employees towards a fair staff culture by improving equality and equity for people who work for them. Previously the staff team had not always respected each other’s cultural differences. The staff team was now working as one group and not separated groups as before. For example, a full staff team Christmas party had been planned that all staff would be attending.

The service 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.

Oversight and governance of the service was taking place effectively. The provider organisation had full awareness of the quality of the service and was accountable for ensuring the present quality was maintained and continued to improve. We were confident oversight of the service was now effectively in place and previously identified issues with the quality of the service had been addressed.

The service understood their duty to collaborate and work in partnership, so services work seamlessly for people. They shared information and learning with partners and collaborate for improvement.

The service had not always worked well with other teams and services to support people. However, there was now trust building between other stakeholders and the service. Other stakeholders such as the commissioning local authority now had full confidence in the management of the home.

The service worked effectively with health and social care professionals involved in each person’s care. There was now a relationship of trust and confidence between the service and the local GP surgery and the local community nursing service.

The service 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 contribute to safe, effective practice and research.

The service was now well led and was improving further. The registered manager was delivering a learning culture in the service so the service met the needs of the people using the service and continued to innovate and improve further.