William Wood 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.

At our last assessment we rated this key question requires improvement. At this assessment the rating has changed to 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 68 (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 clear shared vision, strategy, and culture. They actively promoted a positive, inclusive environment centred on kindness, respect, and supporting individuals to live independently at home. These core values were displayed in the staff room and registered manager’s office, and underpinned through inductions, training programs, meetings, handbooks, and routine communications. Staff demonstrated an understanding of the provider’s vision alongside the specific needs and challenges of the community, applying this knowledge daily to deliver compassionate, person-centred care. One staff member said, “I feel on a personal level I respect people's dignity by treating people how I would want to be treated and how I would want a family member in care to be treated. Care, compassion, listening ear, treating them as a valued human being. Respecting their wishes, boundaries, backgrounds, individuality.”

People and their relatives spoke positively about the care provided and stated they would recommend the service. One person said, “It is marvellous living here. It has such a lovely atmosphere. I feel very safe and happy here as the staff are so lovely.”

Whilst leaders showed commitment to delivering care and support, there were inconsistencies. There were areas where leadership visibility, knowledge and oversight could be strengthened to better support staff in the day to day running of the service.

Staff feedback on leadership and morale was divided. Around half of the care staff felt undervalued, describing a toxic and micromanaging "tick-box" culture, whereas others felt well supported, respected and cared for by leaders, particularly during difficult personal circumstances. Despite the differing views on leadership, staff consistently highlighted the strength of team relationships, the importance of peer support, and their commitment to providing high-quality care to the people they supported. One staff member said, "As a team we genuinely care for those we support. I would trust all of them with my care or [family members]."

The registered manager acknowledged that recent personnel changes and a shift towards supporting people with more complex care needs had caused periodic disruptions. Accepting the feedback regarding staff morale, they were committed to consulting with the provider and staff to identify further support mechanisms, review training options, and increase leadership visibility during the transitional phase.

The provider fostered a positive culture where people felt they could speak up and their voice would be heard.People told us they could share their views and experiences, and their feedback was acted on. One person said, “They [staff] are very friendly and chatty, they tell me about their families and what activities they have been up to. We have great conversations. They listen to me and do what I require of them.”

Overall, relatives were complimentary about the service's approach to communication and feedback, describing how their views were valued. One relative shared that the leadership team were, “Excellent in requesting feedback and seeing if there are ways that care can be improved,” while another relative said, “There has been no issues that I have had to complain about.” Expressing appreciation for management's accessibility and openness, another relative said, “The registered manager and team leaders are very easy to communicate with, they really listen to me and are extremely helpful.”

Opportunities existed for the provider to further develop its diversity, equality, and inclusion practices to embed a fair, supportive, and equitable workplace culture.

The provider had a speaking up and whistleblowing policy in place; however, feedback received regarding the ability to raise concerns and with morale was mixed. Comments ranged from, “I think management do not always listen,” “Anything I might say that is seen as negative is dismissed,” and “Although we feel confident to raise concerns, we are not confident they will be addressed,” to more positive views such as, “I will always speak freely, in general it is a more positive than negative environment,” and “Management are very supportive and approachable.”

Staff had received supervisions to discuss their roles, but feedback regarding this process was also mixed. Some staff described it as a supportive and enabling experience, while others shared contrasting views and had low expectations. The registered manager and provider were aware of the improvements needed within the workplace and were actively working to address them through targeted action plans. As this was a work in progress, we were unable to assess the overall effectiveness of these measures at the time of the inspection.

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.

Improvements had been made since our last inspection, and governance systems had been established to monitor service quality and safety. These systems included regular spot checks, competency assessments, and audits of health and safety, care plans, daily records, and staff files. Although the provider’s internal monitoring had not identified some of the inconsistencies we found with care records, the registered manager was highly receptive to feedback and took prompt action to address this issue. In addition, the provider had recognised the shortfalls of their existing system and was transitioning to a new digital care system which would strengthen existing record monitoring and scrutiny.

Feedback mechanisms supported ongoing quality improvements across the service. The registered manager systematically reviewed stakeholder surveys, incidents, complaints, and compliments to extract key learning points and implement proactive changes.

Systems ensured that staff were suitable for their roles, completed up-to-date training, and shared information seamlessly across the organisation. This framework helped ensure that people received safe, effective, and well-managed care.

Policies and procedures were established to support the delivery of safe and effective care, and a comprehensive business continuity plan was in place to guide contingency responses in an emergency.

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, leadership team, and staff worked in partnership with external agencies to deliver appropriate care and support. This collaboration included district nurses, GPs, other health professionals, and the local authority. People’s records demonstrated effective partnership working with both external professionals and families. Feedback from professionals was positive and reflected successful multi-agency collaboration

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 provider and registered manager analysed incidents, accidents, and safeguarding concerns to identify trends and drive care improvements. Key lessons were shared through staff training and team meetings to encourage reflection and professional development. The registered manager welcomed inspection feedback, took prompt corrective action, and maintained up-to-date knowledge by attending professional forums and local authority meetings to share best practices.This meant people benefited from a service that was responsive to feedback, committed to improvement, and focused on delivering safe, high-quality.