Whittle Hall House Care Residence

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 inspection we rated this key question good. At this inspection the rating has remained good. This meant the service was consistently managed and well-led. Leaders and the culture they created promoted high-quality, person-centred care.

This service scored 75 (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 clear shared vision, strategy and culture which was based on transparency, equity, equality and human rights, diversity and inclusion, and engagement. For example, the provider promoted a positive and inclusive culture through sharing with staff and reinforcing their vision and values of the service. They did this through training, meetings and 1-1 sessions. We observed staff provided people with person-centred care and communicated clearly with them. Staff supported people to make choices and meet their needs in a kind, respectful and caring way. Staff confirmed they were happy working at the home, their comments included, “I love my job and do the very best I can for the residents” and “The residents come first always.”

Leaders had the skills, knowledge, experience and credibility to lead effectively, and did so with integrity, openness and honesty. For example, the manager was experienced as they had previously managed other care homes. The manager was knowledgeable about their regulatory responsibilities. They were aware of the significant events they were required to notify the Care Quality Commission (CQC) about and records showed notifications were submitted where needed. At the time of our assessment site visit the home manager was awaiting the outcome of their application with the Care Quality Commission to become the registered manager for the service, this has since been approved. The manager told us they had received excellent support from the provider, senior managers and managers from other care homes operated by the provider. They attended weekly catch-up meetings with other managers across the organisation to share updates, ideas and good practice.

The provider fostered a positive culture where people felt they could speak up and their voice would be heard. For example, the manager told us they operated an open-door policy and encouraged people, family members and staff to speak up freely. Saff told us they were confident about speaking up and felt they would be listened to. A staff member commented, “I have no worries about speaking up, nothing changes if you don’t.” Family members told us they would confidently speak up on behalf of their relative. Their comments included, “Yes absolutely” and “Yes, I am very vocal and go to resident’s meetings as well.”

The provider included and valued diversity in their workforce. For example, the provider employed a diverse staff group with a wide range of backgrounds, experiences, and view points. Staff told us they felt supported and valued by the provider and managers. Staff comments included, “Yes I feel valued and respected, and well supported” and “I’m asked my opinion on things.” We heard of examples were staff used their first language to communicate verbally and effectively with people. The provider had a policy to support staff to work flexibly around any personal circumstances. The provider shared information with staff about independent services they could contact should they need support with their health or wellbeing in confidence. The provider also held ‘Staff appreciation days’ to acknowledge staff for their work and commitment.

The provider had clear responsibilities, roles, systems of accountability and good governance. They acted on the best information about risk, performance and outcomes, or share this securely with others when appropriate. For example, the provider had comprehensive systems and processes for assessing, monitoring and improving the quality and safety of the service. There was a clear management structure operated at the home, the manager was supported by the provider and a team of senior managers each with clear governance responsibilities and oversight. Audits and checks were completed regularly and there was consistent oversight from the provider to ensure the effectiveness of them. Audits and checks covered areas such as, the environment and equipment, accidents and incidents, falls analysis, medicines, care plans, infection prevention and control, people’s mealtimes experience, complaints, clinical practices and safeguarding concerns. The provider had a contingency plan with guidance on how to respond during unexpected events or situations which impacted the provision of care. The providers systems and processes ensured confidential records were stored and accessed in line with data protection laws.

The provider understood their duty to collaborate and work in partnership, so services worked seamlessly for people. They shared information and learning with partners or collaborate for improvement. For example, the manager explained how they worked in partnership with other organisations, including the local authority commissioning and safeguarding teams, dietician’s, mental health teams and speech and language therapists. Multidisciplinary meetings (MDT’s) took place regularly and attended by other health and social care professionals who offered advice and shared good practice. The manager also told us they attended various provider forums and regular meetings with managers across the organisation where they learned about and shared good practice.

The provider focused on continuous learning, innovation and improvement across the organisation and local system. For example, there were systems and processes in place for learning and improvement. These included regular training sessions, meetings and supervisions for managers and staff. Lessons were learnt and shared with staff to improve their practice following events such as an incident or accident, safeguarding concern or complaint. There was a service improvement plan which was regularly reviewed and updated and evidenced learning and improvements. Improvements were made based on feedback provided in surveys completed by people, family members and staff. Responses were publicised in the form of a ‘You said, we did’ poster. Records from the local authority commissioning team’s quality assurance visits to the home evidenced improvements made. The provider had a range of policies and procedures to guide staff on what is expected of them. They were kept under review to ensure they reflected current legislation and best practice. Managers acted quickly to make improvements following feedback we provided during the site visit. This included updating people’s care plans and taking action to ensure monitoring records were completed when required to accurately reflect the care people received.