Woodhall Care Services Ltd

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 service 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.

The service did not always record the needs of people and their expectations of the service to be provided. There was a shortfall of support hours provided by staff and allocated funded hours, with no evidence this had been identified and discussed with people. Staff had minimum call lengths which included time allocated to meet people’s social wellbeing, although there was no evidence of this recorded on their support plans the managers had a clear direction, action plans and service development plans in place and shared these with staff, people and relatives, as well as a vision to become an outstanding service and expand further.

Not all leaders always had the knowledge to lead effectively. There was a lack of management knowledge around mental capacity, bed rails risks and required assessments to mitigate risks. This appeared to impact on staff as we found they also lacked knowledge in these areas. However, the management team were open, honest and proactive when concerns were discussed with them during the assessment. All feedback from staff was positive about the management, they felt management were compassionate and supportive.

The service fostered a positive culture where people felt they could speak up and their voice would be heard. There was regular engagement with people, their relatives, and staff through supervisions and meetings. People told us they felt they could contact the office and speak to management if they had concerns. Staff told us they could discuss issues and felt supported by management. Staff were confident management would act if they raised concerns and required support.

The service valued diversity in their workforce. They work towards an inclusive and fair culture by improving equality and equity for people who work for them. The registered manager and nominated individual told us they supported people with commitments, such as children and family responsibilities. Flexible working patterns were available to ensure staff could be offered supportive employment with the service.

The service did not always have good governance. They did not always identify risk, and although the management team had identified some of the issues, we had found the concerns were still evident during our assessment. Audits and checks were conducted by the management team and supervisors. These included spot checks for competencies and clear recordings of any issues and improvements in the development action plan. Managers and staff were clear about their roles and how they contributed to the success of the service.

The service understood their duty to collaborate and work in partnership, so services worked seamlessly for people. They shared information and worked with partners including health and social care professionals, social workers and occupational therapists.

The service had an action plan in place and the registered manager had identified issues with the detail of information recorded in care plans and detailed recording of staff when providing support. However, this did not sufficiently address the issues we found with recording, care plans risks and mental capacity. The management team was open and honest. They showed us when previous concerns were raised, how they learned lessons and used case studies to ensure learning and improvement in the future. The service had an ongoing development plan and action plan and showed a commitment to continuous learning, innovation and improvement across the organisation.