Wollaton View 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 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.

During our last inspection of the service, we found the provider was in breach of regulations in relation to good governance. Improvements were found at this inspection, and the provider was no longer in breach of regulations.

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 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 providers were fully invested in improving the environment at Wollaton View and had an ongoing refurbishment process in place. The service improvement plan was detailed and thorough and showed clear actions with timescales. We found a positive care culture had been embedded by the management team. The shared vision at Wollaton View ensured staff understood the importance of upholding the ethos of the organisation.

People, relatives and staff spoke positively about the management team. One person said, “[Name] often comes down to the lounge and is easy to talk with.” A relative told us, “We know [Name] and they are very approachable to talk to about any queries.”

The management team showed an open and transparent approach. They actively welcomed feedback and guidance from partner agencies which would help to improve care quality.

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.

The management team acknowledged the shortfalls found at our previous assessment. They had used our report and associated action plan to ensure their overall service improvement plan was reflective of the improvements required. Although there was still work in progress, the completed work had been acknowledged by people, relatives and staff. One person said, “I would recommend the home. I’m happy enough here.” A relative told us, “I would recommend the home. More so than any other home we’ve seen.”

People and their relatives gave positive feedback about the management team and their relationship with the staff team. People felt the registered manager was available to them, should they need to discuss anything.

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

The management team sought to improve their regular engagement with people and their representatives. However, some people and their relatives spoke of not feeling fully engaged in the service via formal meetings. All of the people we spoke with felt able to openly share their concerns and the complaints process was clearly displayed on the notice boards. Where complaints had been formally raised, we saw appropriate actions had been taken to investigate and resolve these. We saw suggestions from people and their relatives had been used by the management team to improve care quality. Where people had shared their concerns around the environment and the need for refurbishment, their views were incorporated in the provider service improvement plans.

Staff were aware of the freedom to speak up process in the service, and felt they were listened to when they shared their views.

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 has a workforce which is drawn from a wide background of cultures, faiths and skills. They valued, respected and celebrated their staff team. The service recognised the skills of the staff team and supported internal progression. The service championed diversity in their workforce, so as a service, the staff team were better placed to meet people’s varied needs.

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.

Quality management systems at Wollaton View were not fully effective, to enable improvements to be made to quality and safety. We were confident the provider could make and sustain the required improvements at the service. However, in some areas of the service, this progress was not fully embedded sufficiently. For example, the call bell audits had identified times when the call bells had not been answered within the providers set time. The reviews had not identified any areas where improvements were needed, or a review of staffing allocation and deployment were required. The management team responded to our concerns and provided evidence of improved documentation for this moving forward. We were assured by their response.

Information was not always being used effectively to monitor and improve the quality of care. For example, where accident analysis records showed a breakdown of time of day, location, why the incident occurred and actions taken, there was limited information recorded on any lessons learned. We did see that appropriate action had been taken, for example, referring people on to an external team for review of falls risk or of increased observations being carried out. Where the management auditing processes had shortfalls, the management team ensured they responded promptly and used the inspection feedback to drive improvement. We found the management team to be open and transparent, and information was shared promptly and securely with others when appropriate.

The safeguarding log showed evidence of analysis, lessons being learned and of these being shared with the staff team. This information included any contributing factors and actions taken. Staff had been asked to sign the records to say they had reviewed these documents.

The provider did not always understand their duty to collaborate and work in partnership, so services worked seamlessly for people.

The management team understood there were areas where improvement was required, and they showed a robust proactive approach. The management team were open and responsive to ensuring improvements were made, where any care quality had fallen below the providers expected standards.

The management team worked well with external partner agencies, to ensure people received the review, care and support they required. The service shared information and learning with partners to enable improvement.

The management team had worked pro-actively with their commissioner’s and external teams on action plans related to safe medicines management and infection prevention and control.

Wollaton View had an open culture, which embraced diversity and was inclusive. The management team led by example, and staff understood the importance of upholding the values of the organisation.

The provider focused on continuous learning and improvement across the organisation and local system. They encouraged ways of delivering equality of experience, outcomes and quality of life for people.

We saw the management team had responded appropriately where concerns or complaints had been raised with them. They had implemented additional training to reduce the likelihood of future complaints, their responses included relevant documentation reviews.

People were encouraged to complete regular satisfaction surveys, which were used by the management team to improve care quality.

To enable better working practices between the service and the health provider for the commissioned beds, the management team utilised a handover document.

Staff we spoke with felt valued and supported by the management team, and able to progress in their chosen career. Staff were encouraged to complete extra training which would enable them to support people living with specific identified needs. For example, learning disability and oral health training.