Ringway Mews 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.

The provider was in breach of regulations regarding good governance.

This is the first assessment for this newly registered service since Springcare became the provider of Ringway Mews. 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 62 (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.

Since Springcare became the provider of Ringway Mews, they had retained the existing management team and many of the staff team. The provider’s vision was aligned with existing values of the staff team to provide compassionate, person-centred and kind care. The staff team was diverse and inclusive. The staff culture demonstrated effective teamwork across roles with positive care outcomes for people.

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 provider had inclusive and compassionate leaders who were often highly experienced. Recent changes to some working practices such as rota patterns and annual leave scheduling had caused some difficulties and frustrations with staff. Leaders had explained the rationale behind these changes was motivated by a desire to create better consistency of staff cover and consequently better care for people.

Staff told us that they were invited to staff meetings and felt valued. A small number of staff told us that occasionally, they did not feel spoken to respectfully.

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

A whistleblowing policy was available, but not all staff we spoke with were fully aware of how to use it. Generally, staff told us they would be confident in calling out poor practice and leaders we spoke with gave assurance that staff were able to speak up.

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 provider recruited staff from a diverse range and had recently renewed their sponsorship licence to aid international recruitment. People we spoke with agreed that the workplace was diverse and that they generally agreed that people were treated fairly. However, changes in working patterns had been disruptive for some.

The provider had a clear policy for equality in the workplace encouraged staff development irrespective of background.

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 had a framework of clear responsibilities, roles, systems of accountability for good governance, although this was not always fully effective.

The introduction of an electronic care plan management system had been undertaken without effective oversight. Care plans had been converted to an electronic format and were still incomplete in many instances. This meant data that had been previously available on a paper document was now archived away from the care setting.

Audits of people’s care plans had not identified similar findings to what we had found as part of our assessment. As referenced in other areas of this report, accurate and contemporaneous records were not always maintained regarding people’s care. This included personal care charts and information in people’s care plans.

Staff were often reliant on their own extensive knowledge of a person’s care needs and preferences and were slowly updating care plans on to the new system, but this was taking time.

We observed good standards of personalised care, but risks remained for appropriate levels of knowledge for agency staff, should they need to be deployed at short notice.

The provider had undertaken a range of improvements to improve energy efficiency including to laundry systems, food waste and the installation of solar panels.

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.

Shortfalls in the current governance of the electronic care plans did not give assurance that information could be readily accessible or be relied on to be consistently accurate.

The provider was engaged with the local community, supporting local fundraising projects and being visible.

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.

Leaders told us they were a reflective and learning organisation. They acknowledged the risks that had been identified in the transfer from paper to electronic systems and would reflect and address these concerns without delay. There were regular leadership meetings and opportunities to learn from incidents. There were ‘how, why and where’ discussions leading to changes in processes such as one to one recording and human resource team accountabilities.

They told us that staff development and career progression was promoted across the organisation. An apprentice nurse had recently graduated to a registered nurserole after 5 years of supported learning.