Woodville 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.

This is the first assessment for this newly registered service. 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 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 aimed to have a clear shared vision, strategy and culture which was based on transparency, equity, equality and human rights, diversity and inclusion, and engagement. This was in progress.

Staff told us there had been 1 meeting with the provider but despite this, they were not aware of the plans the provider had for the home. One staff member told us, “I would say it’s different. The first company had a different style how they managed. It was more open.” Another staff member said, “I think it’s hard for [registered manager] the new owner changes his decisions.”

The provider told us they wanted to work with staff to ensure the ongoing quality of the service. They told us about plans for a business plan to show their future plans for the home. This included the development of provider values they would expect staff to work to.

Not all leaders 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. Leaders did not always demonstrate the skills, knowledge, experience and credibility to lead effectively, or they did not always do so with integrity, openness and honesty.

Staff told us they worked together to ensure people received the care they needed. One staff member said, “Most staff pull together to get things done. We share the work. The manager helps as well. The residents come first.” Whilst staff were positive about the registered manager, they did not feel the new provider was always working with them to build a positive culture within the service. One staff member told us, “With the new owner communication is not good. It doesn’t happen. It leaves us wondering. We don’t know about anything.” Another said, “Our manager is very good. He always makes sure everything is in place. The problem we have is the new owner. They don’t talk to us they just dictate to us. We are sad [registered manager] is leaving.”

The new provider told us they were developing future management plans for the service which included looking at their values and expectations of staff. They told us staff would be involved in decisions and implementing changes to the service.

People and relatives felt there had been a lack of communication regarding the change of provider. One commented, “They probably have done lots, but we’ve not personally seen it. Everything seems to be fine.” Another said, “Well it’s just been taken over by the new company that seems to have been seamless, I think they’re going softly, softly, there’s been no big changes. The same staff are all still there, it’s good as the residents are all used to the certain ways.”

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

Whilst some staff felt confident to speak up and there was a Whistleblowing policy in place, they did not have confidence that issues they raised would be swiftly acted upon. One staff member told us, “With a good company they think about things before changing. They ask staff. We feel like we say something, but [Provider] does not listen.” Another said, “We had a brief meeting where we were told we had to do cleaning and other things. No discussion. You can say things, but no notice is taken.”

People told us they felt confident to speak with staff or the registered manager if they had any concerns.

The provider valued diversity in their workforce. They were working towards an inclusive and fair culture in relation to the staff who worked for them.

There was a diverse staff team at the home to support people’s needs. Staff felt supported by the registered manager. One staff member told us, “[Registered manager] is very approachable. He cares about the resident and the staff. He will help if we need him.” There was some flexibility in the service in regards to shifts worked. One staff member told us, “I choose to do longer hours as I get my time of in a block.” Staff also spoke of supervision meetings with the registered manager where they had raised problems and they had been resolved.

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 told us they were still developing an effective system of audits and checks and quality monitoring processes to ensure the quality and safety of the home was maintained. We found a number of areas needing improvement that had not been identified by the provider.

When we arrived at the home it was not clear who had responsibility for the home as there was no senior staff member on duty and duty rotas did not confirm this. This meant there was no apparent system of accountability, and it was unclear who would take charge of the home in the event of an emergency.

We identified gaps in care records which meant it was not always possible to confirm people had received the care and support required. This included gaps in food and fluid records for people at risk of malnutrition. These sometimes did not state what the person had been given and what they had consumed to demonstrate they had received sufficient food and fluids to maintain their health. There were also gaps in cleaning records which meant it was not clear consistent cleaning had taken place.

Management staff had been completing call bell audits, but these had not been maintained since 2025 to show that when people used their call bell, they received a timely response. One person had commented to their relative that they had to wait for staff to respond when they used their call bell, but no other concerns were raised response times.

We identified 1 of the stairlifts had not been operational for over a week and was waiting repair or replacement. This had not been reported to us as required and there was no risk assessment to show how this risk was being managed. Staff told us they had spoken with the people affected and had adjusted their support to ensure the people affected were not isolated. The provider told us they did not realise they needed to inform us about this.

The home’s emergency plan and most of the fire related records were detailed on the previous provider’s paperwork which meant they contained inaccurate information. The registered manager told us the provider was looking at transferring all records and documents to the correct paperwork.

The concerns identified during the assessment relating to call bell monitoring, record keeping, fire safety documentation, staffing oversight and environmental risks had either not been identified or not been addressed through the provider's governance systems. This demonstrated existing quality assurance arrangements were not yet sufficiently robust or effective

We discussed our findings with the provider who advised action would be taken to ensure these were addressed. They advised the current manager was leaving and actions were in progress to recruit a new manager to ensure the quality of the service was maintained.

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.

Staff understood the importance of sharing information with healthcare professionals such as when there were changes in people’s health.

Care records confirmed the service worked with other health professionals to ensure people’s needs were met effectively. People were positive about the support they received and felt supported with their healthcare needs.

The ‘service user guide’ in people’s rooms stated that people had access to opticians, vicars and priests from within the community.

The provider aimed to ensure there was continuous learning, innovation and improvement across the organisation and local system to support quality of life for people.

The registered manager told us how they had learnt from incidents and shared learning with staff. For example, when 1 person had been falling out of bed, advice was sought from health professionals. A low bed, and a mattress was obtained for the floor to prevent any injury should they fall or roll out of bed. This managed any ongoing risks.

Staff completed regular training to support continuous learning and to support them in their role. People felt staff knew what they were doing when supporting them.

Feedback we shared with the provider was acknowledged and our discussions helped them consider what learning was needed and what needed to be improved. This included a review of the safeguarding log used to record incidents which not been completed to help support learning. For example, it did not identify any patterns or trends to help learning and drive improvement. The provider told us, “We are learning a lot of things as we go.”