Watford House 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 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.

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

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.

The registered manager and provider promoted a strong values-led culture, centred on treating people, relatives and staff with dignity, respect and compassion. Leaders told us they encouraged staff to provide care in the same way they would wish their own relatives to be treated and maintained a visible presence within the service to role model expected behaviours.

The provider took steps to embed organisational values through staff meetings, supervisions and one-to-one discussions, with recognition schemes used to celebrate staff who demonstrated these values in practice. Leaders also showed an understanding of key challenges, particularly recruiting staff whose values aligned with the service's ethos, and described taking action where staff behaviours did not meet expectations.
 

The provider had inclusive leaders 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 registered manager told us they had received a structured induction, including training across key departments and opportunities to gain experience within other services. They described having access to regular managers' meetings, peer support and guidance from senior leaders, which helped them develop in their role. The registered manager told us support from the provider had improved significantly in recent months, with increased oversight, input and accessibility from senior management.

The provider had been working to an improvement plan developed in partnership with the local authority following previous concerns. Whilst progress had been made and improvements were evident in several areas of care delivery, further work was needed to ensure these improvements were consistently embedded and sustained. The registered manager and senior leaders demonstrated a clear commitment to driving continuous improvement and spoke passionately about ensuring people received safe, effective and high-quality care. They had a good understanding of the areas for development and were actively working to embed changes and improve outcomes for people.
 

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

People, relatives and staff described feeling comfortable raising concerns and were confident they would be listened to by the management team. The registered manager had an ‘open door policy’, whereby they welcomed feedback. The registered manager told us how they had made improvements in staff culture, to ensure all staff share the same values and treat each other equally, promoting a more positive environment for people using the service.
The provider had mechanisms in place for people to share feedback, and they told us how they were going to introduce more opportunities for people to share feedback in the future.
 

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 promoted equality, diversity and inclusion within the workforce. Policies and procedures were in place to support fair and inclusive employment practices. The provider had processes in place to address any concerns relating to discrimination, bullying or harassment.

Staff were provided with opportunities to speak up through team meetings, regular supervision sessions and staff surveys.
 

The provider did not always have clear responsibilities, roles, systems of accountability or good governance.

The provider did not always take timely action to drive and sustain improvements within the service. During our assessment, we identified a number of environmental concerns which had not been maintained to a standard that consistently promoted a safe, comfortable and well-presented environment for people. Although these issues had been identified by staff and included within improvement plans, work had not commenced at the time of our assessment and clear timescales for completion had not been established. For example, the maintenance team had highlighted during weekly checks dating back to January 2026 that redecoration and additional plug sockets were required. However, these had not been actioned by the time of this assessment.

The provider had governance and oversight systems in place to monitor the quality and safety of the service. However, these systems had not yet become fully embedded or sufficiently effective in ensuring identified concerns were addressed promptly. For example, a medicines audit completed in July 2026 failed to identify some of the errors we found during this assessment. This meant that some known issues remained unresolved for extended periods. Following the assessment, the provider took action to address the concerns identified, and work had commenced to improve the environment and strengthen the overall quality of the service.
 

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 registered manager demonstrated a commitment to working collaboratively with a range of health and social care professionals to support positive outcomes for people. They told us they had established effective working relationships with external agencies and professionals, which helped to promote people's health, wellbeing and access to specialist support when required.

Leaders maintained links with the local community and supported people to access community-based opportunities. This included engagement with local dementia resources and community youth groups, helping people to remain connected to their local area.
 

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.

The registered manager told us the service operated within the provider's quality assurance framework and received regular oversight and support from the provider's quality team. This included six-monthly quality reviews, weekly visits from senior leaders and ongoing monitoring through electronic governance systems. The registered manager described receiving regular feedback and reports to support improvement planning, alongside input from quality managers and system specialists. They told us this provided additional oversight, guidance and training to help drive service improvements and maintain quality standards.