Washington Lodge

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.

This service scored 61 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

Although, the provider had a shared vision, strategy and culture to provide person-centred care, this was not always achieved. People, relatives and staff described how the high use of agency staff had an impact on the quality of people’s care. Staff also described how the volume of paperwork was a barrier to providing personalised care.

The provider did not always have 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. People and staff have positive feedback about the registered manager. A staff member said, “We have got a passionate home manager who wants the best for the home. She endeavours to do her best.” However, the registered manager and the provider’s governance processes had not been effective or proactive in identifying and addressing shortfalls in care plans and other care records.

The provider fostered a positive culture where people felt they could speak up and their voice would be heard. Staff knew about the provider’s whistleblowing policy and felt confident to raise concerns. A staff member said, “I have not used it (whistleblowing procedure) but would be confident if needed to.”

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 had policies relating to equality and diversity and staff had completed relevant training.

The provider did not always have consistently 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 had a structured approach to quality assurance, which included a range of checks and audits across various aspects of the home. However, the usual audits had not been successful in identifying shortfalls in the quality of care plans. Following the first day of inspection, the registered manager had reviewed all care plans and identified various shortfalls. They had identified the improvements required to bring each care plan up to date and set timescales for staff to complete the improvements. However, these improvements had not been identified proactively through the provider’s usual quality assurance processes.

The quality assurance processes had also not been successful in ensuring positional change records were completed accurately. Despite, having been made aware of shortfalls through concerns raised to the provider.

The provider had a comprehensive business continuity plan, which provided clear guidance about what to do in emergencies.
 

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 home had good relationships with professionals and the local community. A staff member said, “There are weekly MDT (multi-disciplinary meetings) with [GP practice] and the frailty nurse. The pharmacist is linked and people come in from local churches.”

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. Although incidents and accidents were analysed in detail, other learning opportunities had been missed. This included ensuring sustained improvement to care plans and other records was implemented in a timely way.