Whitemoor 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.

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 newly 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 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 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 a person led culture and people were supported to achieve their goals and aspirations. A person told us, “When I first came to Whitemore, I was very unsettled. I needed help with a lot of things but now I am able to look after myself. I am working towards living in my own flat.”

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 leadership team were experienced and skilled. They worked well together and shared their knowledge and skills with each other and the staff team. This had enabled them to improve people’s quality of life. Staff gave positive feedback. For example, a staff member said, “I feel very supported in my role, from the team leaders to the management. I have been here 4 years and still loving it, that is due to the support of the team and the managers.”

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

People living in the service were asked for their views and were actively encouraged to speak up daily both informally, in meetings, and through surveys. People’s daily support notes showed when they spoke up, their decisions and choices were respected. Staff told us they felt able to speak up and they would be listened to.

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 told us they felt supported. The service made reasonable adjustments to support staff to carry out their roles well. Staff had access to an employee assist programme and occupational health.

Staff were provided with opportunities to progress their careers and encouraged to complete qualifications. Some staff had successfully progressed from support workers to team leaders. This improved stability in the workforce and maintaining continuity of care.

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.

The service completed robust quality assurance audits and effective action plans were monitored and continuously updated. The registered manager understood their responsibilities and of the need to notify the Care Quality Commission (CQC) of significant events, in line with the regulations.

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.

External professionals we spoke with told us staff and the management team were knowledgeable and responsive to people’s needs and wishes. Relationships with external professionals, such as colleges, physiotherapists and social workers, were effective and supported continuity of care. Professionals told us the service was reliable, professional and transparent. One told us, “The home maintains positive working relationships, demonstrating openness and mutual respect”.

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 engaged people, their families and staff in the running of the service and invited feedback through informal chats and regular meetings. Staff were encouraged to regularly feedback about the service delivery and share ideas on how the service could be improved. Anonymous quality assurance questionnaires were sent to people, their families, staff and professionals once a year. We saw the provider used this feedback to make improvements. For example, people suggested they would like a quite communal area in the home, the provider was working with people to decide if a summer house would be beneficial.