Westminster 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 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.

Westminster House had a very warm and welcoming atmosphere that was consistently remarked upon by people and their relatives. Without exception, they spoke of staff who went above and beyond to support individuals in living fulfilling, joyful lives.

Staff demonstrated a deep commitment to person-centred care, attending staff meeting, regular conversation with the registered manager and home manager to ensure seamless communication and responsiveness to any changes in people’s needs. This proactive approach contributed to consistently safe and effective care.

Relatives told us the lives of their family members had been enriched and improved by the care, consideration, kindness and inclusivity of the service. They had many examples of where staff had ‘gone above and beyond’, to ensure their family members had a good day. One relative said, “My [person] has a beautiful home. From what I know [person] has built a good relationship with his peers over the time. The staff working with him are very nice. They are very supportive, friendly and well-trained. Because of this my [person] has come a long way and has a good relationship with all the staff at Westminster House.”

The staff worked in partnership with health and social care professionals, such as occupational therapist, social services, pharmacies, GPs, and speech and language therapists, to ensure people received care and treatment which met their needs.

Healthcare professionals told us how the culture within the home supported positive working relationships which achieved high standards of care. One healthcare professional told us, “I would rate the standard of care as exceptional. [Person] is extremely well cared for by staff. Staff know him very well. [Person] is happy and settled in placement. Home manager is devoted to the care of [person]. Home manager is dedicated and consistently goes above and beyond to ensure his comfort, safety and overall wellbeing.”

Staff were required to complete an equal opportunity form when they first commenced their employment. This was based on equality and diversity whilst highlighting people’s own protected characteristics and cultural backgrounds. There were regular updates for staff through staff through meetings, emails and newsletters about the organisation’s vision, values, and strategic goals. Staff completed mandatory training sessions to understand the vision, values, and strategic goals, and how their roles contribute to achieving them.

The provider’s policies and procedures robustly upheld human rights, fostering an environment where people felt valued, respected, and empowered. This approach enhanced self-esteem and ensured people’s voices were central to the care they received. People and their families felt actively involved and included in shaping the service.

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 management team and staff we spoke with displayed a passion for the service and for what they were aspiring to achieve. The provision of good quality care with positive outcomes for people was evident throughout our assessment of this service.

Staff told us they were fully supported at work, were encouraged to question practices and suggest new ideas or initiatives to help continually improve their practice.

Staff told us the communication systems and team working within the service were robust and effective. Staff told us, “I feel supported, we work well as a team. This is a good place to work.”

One relative told us, “The home manager is exceptional. She knows what she is doing, she knows the people, the staff. Anything I require, I can contact her.”

One professional told us, “The home manager is a proactive manager. She communicates well with the health team, seeks support on time, and communicates professionally and effectively with families. The registered manager is actively supporting the home manager for more complex issues, and when the home manager is on leave. The registered manager knows the clients well and provides timely responses to all queries the health team requires.”

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

All staff we spoke with told us they were fully encouraged to speak up and this was always discussed in team meetings. One member of staff said, “The manager talks to us all the time and always encourages us to speak up. As a whole team I don’t think we would have any worries about speaking up because the manager is open.” A second member of staff told us, "They are so open and kind we would not hesitate to speak with them if we had any worries."

Freedom to speak up was highlighted in the staff handbook where staff had access to a whistleblowing policy and phone numbers of those to call if they wanted to share concerns. Staff were made aware of the whistle-blowing policy during their induction and training in how to respond to safeguarding concerns.

We found the culture at Westminster House was open and transparent, led by a management team who actively encouraged feedback. This feedback was used effectively to improve care quality across the service.

Surveys were sent out to people and staff so that they could share their views on the organisation or raise any concerns. Records showed that during staff meetings, supervisions and appraisals staff were encouraged to speak up and be heard. Any information was acted on and respected. The provider organised workshops where staff and people using the service discussed the importance of speaking up.

One relative told us, “They keep me in contact by text message or telephone. The manager also arranges meetings with us and keeps us up to date. There are no restrictions on visits and make you very welcome. There is always a lovely atmosphere.”

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 leadership team were clear and proactive on the approach to staff inclusion and equality, acknowledging with a workforce of staff who came from diverse backgrounds. Staff had received Equality and Diversity Training as part of their training within the service.

The provider had policies and procedures in place to create an inclusive environment that upheld the principles of equality and diversity. The provider was aware of their duty as an employer, to understand and respect people’s protected characteristics and prevent discrimination.

The provider ensured that protected characteristics of staff were considered as part of this approach. Staff were afforded flexible working arrangements to accommodate religious festivals and practices. Staff spoke positively about the management team and voiced no concerns.

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.

People received care from a provider who continually monitored and exceeded standards and looked at how improvements in service delivery could be made. There was a robust quality focused governance framework to ensure the service operated within the standards expected by the provider and met regulatory and legislative requirements.

The provider had successfully embedded a very robust auditing system. This included regular internal audits in areas such as accidents and incidents, risk management plans, staff training, staff supervision, reviews of people's goals and recruitment records. Best practice was shared throughout the team, identifying what had worked well for each person, or what had not worked well. The dynamic nature of the care provided, required the registered manager to have excellent oversight of the service.

The provider continuously monitored the service to drive continuous improvement. The provider invested in the learning and development of its staff, which benefitted people through the maintenance of a stable, motivated and highly skilled staff team. The registered manager and staff team were clear about their roles, and there was a strong framework to monitor quality performance, risks and regulatory requirements. The provider welcomed checks and quality audits from other organisations as assurance to the effectiveness of their own governance processes.

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.

One professional told us, “My overall impression is that Westminster House is an excellent service that implements advised guidance correctly and is directly responsible for the significant progress of some very complex clients.” Another professional said, “They are very supportive. [Person’s] needs are met, physical, healthy and educational needs. The provider has a good communication with professional involved.” Staff supported people to attend community groups and outings, such as local parks and farms. People were involved in getting to know their local shops and businesses, including a supermarket and gym. We were shown multiple sources of evidence where people were seen to be enjoying going out into the community to follow their desired past times.

Relatives we talked to spoke very positively about their partnership with the service. We heard examples from relatives how the service worked in partnership with them to ensure people’s needs were safely met in the service. People and their relatives told us they would recommend the service to others.

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 registered manager analysed accidents and incidents and supported the team to look at what went wrong, what could be prevented and what needed to change in the future. This was done in a nurturing and positive way where the whole team learned and were part of improving the service. Any concerns identified were used as an opportunity to develop and learn, with the desire to ensure people received the best care and support. Learning had improved practice at the home and was then shared across the provider’s other services.

The provider’s robust governance system demonstrated effective and clear oversight of the home and a quality focused approach. Supervisions and team meetings were used to openly discuss training needs and further training would be accessed if staff felt they needed it, which in turn better supported safe and effective practice.

The provider encouraged feedback from people and other stakeholders and used this information to adapt and change the service to accurately meet peoples’ individual preferences and characteristics. The registered manager, home manager and staff team listened, acted and involved people in all aspects of the day-to-day operations within the home.