Highgate Home Care Also known as Willerby Office

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 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 71 (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 provider’s vision, strategy and culture, was based on valuing people’s independence and maintaining safe, compassionate care in their own homes. Staff consistently described a strong, team-based culture and a shared focus on keeping people safe and well. One staff member talked about how staff worked together to support people, saying, “We all sing from the same song sheet.” Staff meetings, compliments folders, surveys and recognition of positive feedback (including external reviews and thank you cards) were used to reinforce shared values and celebrate good practice.

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 registered manager and their deputies were described as visible, approachable and supportive. A staff member said, “They always help.” People and relatives were very positive about the leadership. One relative told us, “[The registered] manager is fantastic. They are always receptive.” Leaders encouraged and supported progression and development through supervision, observations and supporting staff to achieve qualifications.

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

Staff told us they would escalate any issues about people’s wellbeing. One staff member explained, “[The person] comes first, and if something doesn’t look right, I'll be the first one to shout it loud.” Team meetings and quality audits specifically reminded staff about reporting concerns and whistleblowing. Staff described using supervision, on-call support and group communication channels to discuss incidents, seek advice and share learning, which helped issues to be addressed. A staff member explained how they always made things known because managers were, “Always happy to get feedback and they will do what they can to improve those situations.”

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 a diverse workforce and took steps to support staff with different needs and personal circumstances. Managers were described as flexible and supportive around mental health, sickness and maternity leave, including phased returns, “keep in touch” days and tailoring hours around childcare. Values-based recruitment processes were in place and managers highlighted support for staff during life events.

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, or share this securely with others when appropriate.

There was an overarching quality assurance and compliance tool, planned audit schedule, medicines audits and action plans. Leaders were increasing the frequency of full-service audits from 3 to 6 times per year, with involvement from both the registered manager and the nominated individual. Electronic systems supported rota planning, late-call monitoring and eMARs, and there were structured processes for recruitment checks, disciplinary action and lessons learnt, indicating a framework for monitoring quality and safety.

However, we found important governance gaps. For example, 1 person was receiving care without a completed risk assessment, mental capacity and lasting power of attorney (LPA) documentation were inconsistently recorded, and key risk information were missing from care plans and risk assessments. While managers routinely reviewed incidents, complaints and survey feedback in weekly management and care manager meetings, these governance activities had not yet fully addressed the basic documentation and notification issues that underpin safe, sustainable care. The registered manager took immediate action to rectify these concerns.

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 provider understood the importance of working with partners and the local community to support people’s health, wellbeing and independence. The service worked with local charities to prevent isolation and promote social cohesion. Staff gave examples of how they worked to support people to gain independence and confidence through community involvement, such as supporting people to attend church, community coffee mornings and local activities, and exploring the use of community venues so people could share interests and histories with others.

The provider focused on continuous learning, innovation and improvement across the organisation and local system. They encouraged creative ways of delivering equality of experience, outcome and quality of life for people. They actively contributed to safe, effective practice and research.

There was a structured audit schedule linked to regulations, lessons learnt paperwork, weekly care manager and directional meetings, and action plans that identified issues. New policies were developed and written in response to specific risks. The service was planning a move to a new digital care system, which they felt would improve transparency and reduce time staff spent on recording. Values-based interview tools, increased audit frequency and annual people and staff surveys showed an intent to learn and adapt. Staff told us managers welcomed feedback and took opportunities to improve.