Winside Care

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 leadership, management and governance assured high-quality, person-centred care; supported learning and innovation; and promoted an open, fair culture.

This is the first assessment for this service. This key question has been rated good. This meant the service was well-led. Leaders and the culture they created promoted high-quality, person-centred care.

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.

There was a positive shared culture at the service. The provider had oversight of this in relation to ensuring people received care in a way which they wanted and met their needs and preferences. People wanted to feel in control of their lives and the provider recognised the importance of this.

The provider had an inclusive leader who understood the context in which they delivered care, treatment and support and embodied the culture and values of their workforce and organisation.

The provider led the person centred culture and monitored staff were on board with this. They reacted quickly and openly to any issues raised by people or their relatives.

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

The provider was delivering care to people who were confident about what they wanted from the service. The provider worked well with people to promote this. People talked us through how they raised issues which were important to them with the provider about their care, especially when they first started to receive care from Winside Care. People told us the provider and staff addressed these issues. People also told us they felt confident to raise issues and speak with the provider if they needed to again.

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 completed the appropriate checks for those staff who were from overseas to promote their safety at work. All staff spoke well of the provider in relation to the support and opportunities they gave them to do well in their work and settle into living and working in the UK.

The provider did not always have clear, accountable good governance systems to assess the quality of the care provided.

The provider had some good governance systems to monitor care visit times, evidence staff training, and supervision. However, their audits were not effective to identify shortfalls and issues. We found shortfalls with medicine management, consent and capacity, recruitment checks, reviews of care, environmental assessments, moving and handling planning, and end of life planning, which the provider had not. Other completed audits often lacked evidence to show how and why the audit demonstrated compliance. Which the provider had also not identified themselves.

No one had come to harm as a result of these issues with audits, but the provider needed to ensure audits were effective and robust in order to fully identify issues and correct these outside of a CQC assessment process. The provider assured us they would make these improvements to improve this aspect of the service they provided. We therefore concluded it was proportionate for the overall rating of this well led domain.

The provider understood their duty to collaborate and work in partnership, so services worked seamlessly for people.

From our conversations with the provider, the provider was aware of this and was prepared to do this when required. People felt confident the provider would do this when this arose.

The provider did not always focus on continuous learning, innovation and improvement across the organisation and local system.

The provider had listened to people when they raised issues about the care they received, making practical changes, and addressing staff practice. However, the provider had not used their own incident report processes to capture and explore incidents in a complete and robust way. Therefore, some incidents were not fully investigated to ensure all the issues had been identified and lessons had been fully learnt.