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.

At our last assessment we rated this key question requires improvement. At this assessment the rating has changed to inadequate. This meant there were widespread and significant shortfalls in leadership. Leaders and the culture they created did not assure the delivery of high-quality care.

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

This service scored 36 (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 shared vision, strategy and culture based on transparency, equity, equality and human rights.

Staff were not supported to understand the vision, values and strategic goals. There had been no structured planning process to develop these goals in partnership with people, staff and external partners.

There was a disconnect between care staff and the management team, and the overall culture within the service was not always positive. Many of the staff we spoke with did not feel valued or supported. They told us, “They don’t see it, the managers over there, but the residents do, the families do. They can see how tired we all are” and “There is a lack of contact. There is a divide. They never help us with care for example.” Staff recruited more recently tended to be more positive. They told us, “Since I started working, I feel welcomed and supported by my colleagues and by the management” and “Yes, senior staff are available and treat staff well, I haven't heard any complaints.”

We received reports from external professionals about a very poor culture prior to the last inspection in 2025. They reported some improvements since the new manager started. However, further improvement was needed as progress was impacted by use of agency staff, sickness levels, and a high level of dissatisfaction from within the staff team. The manager acknowledged there was still some resistance to the changes being made and further work was required to create a shared vision and culture.

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 provider did not demonstrate they had the skills, knowledge, experience, and credibility to lead effectively. Safe care was not being delivered consistently, and risks were not being managed well. Examples of poor culture impacting on the quality of care had not been addressed quickly.

The audits shared were of poor quality and leaders did not always understand their statutory responsibilities, including the need to notify CQC when a safeguarding referral was made to the local authority safeguarding team. Statutory notifications submitted were often of poor quality with very basic information provided.

The manager had only been permanent for a relatively short period of time, and they had started to make some changes. However, they needed more support from the provider. The senior team was short staffed and there was a lack of consistent support from regional managers. This was reflected in the number of shortfalls we identified during the inspection and how unprepared the home was for reinspection.

We did receive some positive feedback about the current manager. External professionals told us, “We had a number of concerns leading up to the last CQC inspection and for the period afterwards…The main theme of the concerns going back to that period were around delays in escalating clinical concerns in a timely manner and handover from staff at the home. This included handover on care home rounds but also when staff were being asked about an urgent clinical concern. We have done a lot of work since then collaboratively with the manager and this has improved considerably” and “the team have worked collaboratively with our team to progress through an…action plan based on a previous audit. Historically there have been issues…specifically in delays in communication but this has been addressed and a plan put in place to mitigate any potential for repetition.”

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

The manager had put measures in place to encourage a culture of open-ness to prevent closed cultures forming. This included measures to ensure staff worked across different units. Staff had opportunities to raise concerns through supervisions, team meetings and surveys. Staff did not always feel listened to and there were significant concerns expressed in feedback provided during the inspection about staffing levels and workloads.

Residents and families told us they knew how to raise concerns and felt able to do so.

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 staff we spoke with were from a diverse range of backgrounds. We received no feedback about any unfair treatment related to these backgrounds.

Governance processes were in place, but they had not been effective at driving the improvement that was required.

The quality assurance system had not been effective. We found multiple breaches of regulations related to person centred care, dignity and respect, safe care and treatment, premises and equipment, good governance and staffing. Two of the breaches were breaches repeated from the previous inspection. There was no oversight of this, and no evidence provided to demonstrate any attempts had been made to address them. The exact same issues were still occurring. This meant people were put at an increased risk of receiving poor quality care and we could not be assured people were always receiving safe care.

Policies and procedures had not been followed, and managers were often not familiar with them.

The provider had failed to ensure staff maintained accurate, complete and contemporaneous record. This placed people at risk of not receiving care in line with their assessed needs. This was also an issue at the last inspection in 2025 and there was a lack of urgency to address this issue.

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.

The provider was working collaboratively with the local authority to help drive improvements within the service and appropriate referrals were made to external health and social care professionals when required.

Visiting professionals reported an improvement in their experience of working with staff from the home and key stakeholders attributed these improvements to a change in approach since the new manager started.

The provider did not demonstrate a good understanding of how to make improvement happen.

Systems and processes were not developed enough to support continuous improvement and processes were not robust. This included the need to understand their safeguarding responsibilities and the need to notify CQC when a safeguarding referral is made to the local authority safeguarding team and to address previous breaches of regulation at the last inspection in 2025.