Wilkinson Park

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.

The registered manager had instigated several changes and a range of improvements since the last inspection. Monitoring systems were in place, although the registered manager acknowledged there was still more work to do. Governance systems were in place and overseen by the registered manager. Senior managers in the organisation oversaw the running of the service. The registered manager was trying to effectively engage with the local community to bring about positive outcomes.

This service scored 71 (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 provider and the registered manager had a clear vision of the culture and outcomes required for the home. Professionals were highly positive about the improvements the registered manager had brought about within the service and their impact on the home. A professional told us, “We have been impressed by the [registered manager], who is very responsive and communicates really well with our staff.”

Staff shared this vision and understanding of the need to provide high quality, personal and safe care. Comments from staff included, “I believe the service is performing exceptionally well and providing; person centred care, excellent staff leadership, strong community collaboration and compassionate care for service users” and “Staff genuinely get to know the individuals we support, and you can see the effort that goes into tailoring care plans around each person’s preferences, routine and needs.”

The provider had inclusive leaders at all levels 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.

People were positive about the registered manager and felt they had been a good influence on the service over the last 3 years. Staff and professionals also highlighted the progress made by the service and the proactive attitude of the registered manager. Staff members told us, “Managers are approachable and willing to help when needed” and “[Registered manager] is amazing. We had some minor bother 2 nights ago. She was so supportive and is there in person or on the phone.” Staff had been asked to record anonymous comments about the registered manager as part of a service review. Comments recorded included, ‘Professional, honest and caring’; ‘Well respected by staff and service users, very approachable if needed’ and ‘Great manager, always there to help us when we need her.’

Staff also said that senior managers within the organisation were available and supportive to them, and they could approach them for help if needed. A staff member told us, “If there are things that upset you – you can speak with [clinical support manager]. I’ve done so in the past.”

Feedback forms from people who lived at the service also made positive comments about the registered manager and the care team.

Some relatives told us they sometimes found it difficult to speak with the registered manager when they called the service, and they did not always respond to their calls in a timely manner

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

People said they could easily raise any issues or concerns, and we saw evidence that issues brought to the registered manager’s attention had been considered.

Information regarding the company’s whistle blowing policy was available to staff. Staff told us they were aware of the process and knew how to raise any concerns. A staff member told us, “I am aware of the whistleblowing policy and understand that it’s to protect service users, staff and the quality of care. It’s also about raising serious concerns.”

Staff had received a range of training including safeguarding adults training and how to raise whistle blowing concerns.

The provider strongly valued diversity in their workforce. They had an inclusive and fair culture which had improved equality and equity for people who worked for them.

The culture of the service strongly valued diversity and people from a range of cultures worked within the service. The home had several staff from abroad who were working under the government sponsorship system. They told us they were fairly treated and well accepted within the home. A staff member told us, “The sponsored staff are really friendly and really nice. They are really hard working. We work as a team.”

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.

Since the last inspection the registered manager had introduced a range of checks and systems to ensure the quality and safety of the service. Most concerns noted at the previous inspection had been addressed, and a range of quality monitoring systems were in place. The service had a plan for the updating and development of the environment at the home and was working on a programme of improvements for the wider grounds, including the development of a bike track to help people with activity, fitness and taking positive risks.

The provider had a range of systems to oversee the ongoing development and improvement of the service. The registered manager was supported through regular supervision, to ensure progress was monitored and offer support and encouragement in their role.

The registered manager was enthusiastic about developing the service and trying to improve outcomes for people. They spoke about a range of plans and ideas for driving further improvements and supporting people to be more active, both within the service and the wider community.

Professionals were positive about the leadership and skills of the registered manager and the deputy manager. A professional told us, “Since the current manager joined the service there has been an improvement in the care that service users receive. There has also been a more consistent approach.” However, they felt less certain about the support offered by other senior staff in the organisation

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 spoke about how they had worked diligently to engage with the local community and engage with local organisations to promote inclusivity for people who used the service. They told us about ongoing efforts to encourage partnerships across the locality and engage with key individuals to endorse equality. The registered manager had made efforts to provide information about the work of the service and explain the processes they followed in supporting people.

Professionals were positive about the efforts made by the registered manager to work closely with partner organisations and improve communication about the service and people living at the home. A professional told us, “We have recently agreed to establish a commissioning meeting every quarter that will give oversight of any planned admission or discharges. Senior management within Careline Lifestyles are supportive of this. I will also meet with the manager every month. “

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.

Staff told us there was access to a range of training and development and the service’s training matrix showed most staff were up to date with required training. There was evidence that significant events and safeguarding matters had been considered on an individual level. However, there was no clear evidence that a more overarching view of incidents was regularly considered and reviewed.

Professionals told us that the continued high use of agency staff and staff from other services meant that people did not always receive consistent care and did not support a more innovative and progressive approach to people’s care needs.