Rangeford Care - Wadswick Green

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.

This service scored 57 (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 clear shared vision, strategy and culture which was based on transparency, equity, equality and human rights, diversity and inclusion, and engagement. They did not always understand the challenges and the needs of people and their communities.

The leadership of the service and subsequent changes meant improvements to the culture, but they were yet to be fully embedded across the service.

A new manager was in post and staff told us communication and support had already improved. Staff welcomed the action the new manager was taking to improve the service. This meant there was an emerging shared direction focused on supporting staff and improving the quality of care people received.

Leaders had not always understood the context in which the provider delivered care, treatment and support. They did not always embody the culture and values of their workforce and organisation.

The provider had recognised the ongoing issues they had with leadership at the service and had addressed this by recruiting a new manager who had brought stability and trust to the team.

Staff told us leaders were visible, approachable and supportive, and said communication, supervision and team meetings had improved since the new manager was appointed.

Leaders acknowledged the impact previous changes in management had on staff morale and described actions to rebuild trust and provide reassurance. Staff feedback reflected that leadership was becoming more consistent and inclusive. These improvements were beginning to support a more stable and reliable service, although they were not yet fully embedded.

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

Leaders encouraged open communication and promoted opportunities for staff to raise concerns. Leaders described how they supported staff to share issues and contribute to service improvement, including through regular engagement and meetings.

Staff told us they felt confident to speak up to the new manager and felt listened to. Leaders acknowledged staff morale had previously been low and recognised the importance of creating an open culture where concerns could be raised without fear. This meant people and staff were supported by leaders who encouraged openness and learning, although the effectiveness of these approaches were still developing.

The provider did not always value diversity in their workforce. They did not always work towards an inclusive and fair culture by improving equality and equity for people who worked for them.

Staff told us they had experienced a period of time where they did not feel included or valued in the workplace which led to them not working as a cohesive team. Leaders had identified these issues and were working towards promoting an increasingly fair and inclusive culture. Staff told us they now felt leaders valued them and considered their individual needs.

Leaders had taken steps to improve communication and engagement across the team, recognising that a stable and supported workforce helped ensure people experienced consistent, person‑centred care. These actions were beginning to have a positive effect, although they had not yet been embedded.

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.

Leaders did not always have reliable oversight of the service. Information and records were stored across different systems, which made it harder for them to monitor risks and ensure consistency.

At the time of the inspection there was no registered manager in post, although the newly appointed manager had applied to register with CQC. Leaders acknowledged shortfalls in governance and described their plans to improve oversight and strengthen management processes. These improvements were at an early stage and the effectiveness had not been fully evaluated. Leaders recognised that stronger, more consistent governance management was necessary to ensure people consistently received safe and well‑led care.

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 service worked effectively with partners and community organisations to support people’s wellbeing and continuity of care. Leaders had positive relationships within the community setting, which helped people access the right support when they needed it.

Partnership working supported coordinated care and helped ensure people received timely input from other services. These relationships contributed to people experiencing consistent and joined‑up support.

The provider did not always focus on continuous learning, innovation and improvement across the organisation and local system. They did not always encourage creative ways of delivering equality of experience, outcome and quality of life for people. They did not always actively contribute to safe, effective practice and research.

Leaders were developing a learning culture, although improvements were not yet fully embedded. They recognised the need to strengthen consistency and used feedback from people and staff to identify priorities, including improving communication and supporting staff morale.

Leaders described steps they were taking to standardise systems and policies so they could effectively monitor themes and drive improvement. However, records were stored in 2 different systems which made it difficult for leaders to review areas of learning and demonstrate progress.

These improvements were at an early stage. Leaders acknowledged that stronger systems for learning and oversight were necessary to ensure people consistently experienced safe, coordinated and high‑quality care.