Haywood Oaks Care Home

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 changed to 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.

The service was in breach of legal regulation in relation to good governance.

This service scored 54 (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 that promoted transparency, equity, equality, human rights, diversity, inclusion, and engagement, with an understanding of the challenges and needs of people and their communities. However, this vision was not consistently reflected in day‑to‑day practice at Hayward Oaks.

There was limited evidence that learning and lessons identified were routinely shared with staff to support a cohesive and well‑informed workforce. Staff were not always provided with clear, consistent guidance on how people wished to be supported, which reduced their ability to deliver care that aligned with the provider’s stated values and person‑centred approach.

As a result, the provider could not fully demonstrate that its shared direction and culture were embedded across the service.

The provider did not have inclusive leaders at all levels who understood the context in which they delivered care, treatment and support, or who embodied the culture and values of their workforce and organisation.

The registered manager acknowledged they were aware of some of the issues identified during the assessment. However, they told us these concerns had not been formally raised with staff meaning appropriate action had not been taken to ensure improvement. This meant issues were not always addressed in a timely or structured way, and staff were not consistently supported to understand expectations or improve practice.

People, relatives and staff we spoke with told us they would feel comfortable speaking up and were confident their views and concerns would be listened to and acted upon.

During the assessment, people and relatives described an open and approachable culture where they felt able to raise concerns without fear of being ignored or treated unfairly. They told us they trusted staff and management to respond appropriately and take action when needed. One person said when they had raised a concern it, “Was dealt with really quickly, I was very happy,” which showed in this instance the provider responded promptly and effectively to the issues raised.

Staff also told us they felt able to speak openly about concerns and believed their voices would be heard by the management team.

The provider valued diversity within their workforce and worked to promote an inclusive and fair culture by improving equality and equity for people who worked for them.

Staff told us they felt respected, supported and treated fairly regardless of their background or personal circumstances. Management demonstrated flexibility and understanding, supporting staff to balance work responsibilities with personal needs. Staff told us the registered manager was approachable and accommodating, for example by allowing time off for personal appointments or responding flexibly in emergency situations such as childcare difficulties.

The registered manager did not have clear responsibilities, defined roles, or effective systems of accountability and governance in place. Governance arrangements were not robust enough to ensure safe, effective and well‑managed care on a consistent basis.

The registered manager did not act on the best available information about risks, performance or outcomes, and did not always share information appropriately when required. Systems intended to identify and manage risk were ineffective. Audits failed to consistently highlight significant concerns identified during this inspection, particularly in relation to care planning and medicines management. This demonstrated a lack of effective oversight and quality assurance.

Where audits or reviews had identified issues, action plans were not effectively implemented. Actions had not been clearly allocated to named individuals, timescales were not defined, and there was no effective monitoring of progress or evidence that improvements had been sustained. This meant known risks were not addressed and issues repeatedly occurred without being resolved.

The provider was responsive to the feedback from the assessment and immediately took steps to support the registered manager to develop an action plan for 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. People were supported by suitably skilled external professionals where needed, including healthcare specialists and independent advocates, the provider consistently acted in people’s best interests and maintained open, collaborative communication.

The provider did not always focus on continuous learning, innovation and improvement across the organisation or the wider local system. They did not consistently contribute to the development of safe and effective practice through learning, reflection or improvement activity.

Opportunities for shared learning and improvement were not always embedded into day‑to‑day practice. Despite repeated requests, the registered manager was only able to provide minutes from team meetings that were over 12 months old. This meant the provider could not demonstrate that current risks, areas of concern or opportunities for improvement were being regularly discussed, reviewed or acted upon with staff.

In addition, staff did not consistently receive personalised feedback about their performance. There was limited evidence of structured support to help staff reflect on their practice or develop their skills in response to identified issues. This reduced opportunities for learning and improvement and meant that lessons from incidents, audits or observations were not always used to strengthen practice.

The provider acknowledged that improvements were required to ensure learning systems were active, up to date and effective, and that staff were supported through regular feedback, reflection and development to drive sustained improvement in the quality of care an implemented an action plan to ensure learning and improvement were a primary area of focus.