Weaver 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. This is the first assessment for this service. This key question has been rated requires improvement. This meant the management and leadership was inconsistent. Leaders and the culture they created did not always support the delivery of high-quality, person-centred care.

This service scored 61 (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 did not have a clear shared vision, strategy and culture which was based on transparency, equity, equality and human rights, diversity and inclusion, and engagement. They did not always understand the challenges and the needs of people and their communities.

Changes in management and staffing had affected the culture of the home and people’s experiences. One relative told us staff turnover meant people did not always have enough time to develop trusting relationships with staff, while another felt communication needed to improve. Some staff also felt changes within the staff team had not always been communicated or acknowledged by the provider.

However, most staff were positive about the current direction of the home and its focus on supporting people to live as they wished. One staff member said, “[Manager’s name] is all for the people we support. It is their home and we are there for them.”

The manager and provider recognised that further work was needed to embed improvements and rebuild stability. The manager told us, “Slowly things are improving. We have new staff and new people moving into the home.”

Not all leaders understood the context in which the provider delivered care, treatment and support. They did not always embody the culture and values of their workforce and organisation. Leaders did not always have the skills, knowledge, experience and credibility to lead effectively, or they did not always do so with integrity, openness and honesty.

The service had 5 registered managers in 3 years, with interim management arrangements between appointments. Staff said these changes had led to differing expectations and had affected their confidence in leadership. Staff also told us they had not always felt listened to or able to raise concerns openly.

At the time of our assessment, the new manager had been in post for 5 weeks and relationships were still developing. However, staff described improvements and felt they were becoming more involved in how the home was managed. Staff meetings provided opportunities to discuss developments and expectations. One staff member said, “I feel our voices are heard now. You can raise anything to [manager’s name] and they listen to us.” Another said, “[Manager’s name] understands the role, and I am happy staff are starting to pull together.”

The manager told us the provider made funding available for equipment to support people’s comfort and enjoyment.

People did not always feel they could speak up and that their voice would be heard.

Staff had not always felt able to speak up or confident their concerns would be heard. Some staff told us they had previously felt ignored when raising concerns. Although this had contributed to changes in the management structure, staff said rebuilding trust would take time. One staff member remained cautious and felt let down by the provider.

Information was available about how staff could raise concerns, and the provider had introduced initiatives to create more opportunities for staff to speak openly and be heard. However, these improvements were still being embedded and had not yet fully restored staff confidence.

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.

Staff felt their individual needs were respected and told us they were treated fairly. Flexible working arrangements supported staff to balance work with personal commitments, including study and extended visits to family overseas.

Staff told us they had equal access to training and development opportunities. The manager recognised staff had different learning needs and was committed to ensuring future developments were inclusive and accessible to all staff.

The provider did not always have clear responsibilities, roles, systems of accountability or good governance. They did not always act on the best information about risk, performance and outcomes, or share this securely with others when appropriate.

The provider did not always have effective systems of governance and oversight. Although audits and checks were completed across the service, these had not always identified shortfalls in the quality, accuracy and review of records.

Care records did not always reflect people’s current needs, risks, communication needs, goals or wishes. Some health and risk assessments had not been completed or reviewed within expected timescales. Managers were also unaware that information about 1 person’s distressed behaviour was being recorded separately from their care plan, limiting oversight of risks and emerging themes.

Quality assurance processes had not identified all shortfalls, and when they had, these had not consistently been addressed in a timely way.

Systems for seeking and acting on people’s views also required improvement. People were not always meaningfully involved in care reviews, house meetings had not taken place as expected, and the provider had not explored why engagement with a satisfaction survey was low.

The manager and provider recognised improvements were required and had started to take action. However, these improvements were recent and needed further time to become embedded and demonstrate sustained improvement.

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.

Managers and staff worked positively with other services and health and social care professionals to support people’s needs. Arrangements were in place to liaise with local day services and colleges, and further opportunities were being explored to increase people’s community involvement.

External professionals were positive about the service and raised no concerns about the quality of care and support provided.

The provider also used resources across the organisation to support Weaver House, including staff covering absences and a buddy system to support the new manager.

The provider focused on continuous learning, innovation and improvement across the organisation and local system. They actively contributed to safe, effective practice and research.

The provider supported learning and improvement within the service. The manager had identified areas for improvement and was introducing new strategies, supported by the operations manager. A detailed action plan brought together learning from internal and external audits and feedback and was being used to drive improvements. Both the manager and the operations manager were receptive to feedback during our assessment and made some immediate improvements to use as examples of future intended practice.

Leaders had begun to listen to staff and acted on identified learning needs. For example, further training was arranged when some staff lacked confidence using the electronic care planning system. The manager also identified a gap in staff knowledge and arranged online training while awaiting more formal training.