Wasdale Court

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

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.

The service was in breach of legal regulation in relation to governance at the service.

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 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. Staff told us there had been a lot of recent changes to help improve the service. One staff member said, “In the last 6 weeks I have seen such a difference and how much happier, settled and engaging people are.” Another staff member said, “We are making positive changes; I’m not saying it’s going to be done overnight but it’s going in the right direction.” The provider was looking to introduce a culture audit at the service to support improvement in areas that we identified during this assessment and to drive improvements.

The service 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, however they had not always ensured appropriate oversight or systems were in place to maintain consistency and improve the quality of the care.

The registered manager had only been in post a short time and was working hard to address the challenges within the service. Staff described a supportive and approachable registered manager. Comments included, “[Registered Manager] is lovely; can always go and talk to them. They are friendly and listen to suggestions. They are amazing” and, “Management is absolutely fantastic. I have not seen better management.” People who used the service, their relatives and professionals also provided positive feedback about the registered manager’s approach and conduct.

We found the registered manager was open and honest during the assessment and was passionate about promoting a person-centred service.

The provider fostered a positive culture where people felt they could speak up and their voice would be heard. The provider had a whistleblowing policy. They addressed issues raised and shared them transparently with partner agencies. Staff felt confident they could speak up and issues would be addressed. They knew how to escalate issues if they weren’t satisfied. A staff member stated, “The registered manager here would always deal with it. No concerns here” and, “I can approach any management at any time with concerns, and they will be dealt with in the correct manner.”

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 management team made reasonable adjustments to help people carry out their roles well. Staff felt supported and that they were treated fairly.

The provider did not have clear responsibilities, roles, systems of accountability or good governance. They did not always act on the best information about risk, performance and outcomes. The provider’s audits and checks did not always identify and drive improvements and assess the quality of the service. For example, the inconsistencies in how people were supported, the improvements needed with evacuation procedures, lack of staff training to support people’s individual needs, risks associated with the environment and lack of recorded consent. When actions were identified these were not always completed in a timely manner such as concerns the fire doors were not to the required standard. The provider had not sought people’s feedback about the running of the service and people’s voice in how things could be improved.

People’s relatives and staff fed back that the change of ownership had been unsettling, and people were not kept informed of the changes. A staff member told us, “No support workers were told anything, we knew nothing until all the changes started happening.” A relative told us , “A lot of the changes were poorly handled.”

The provider had started to take actions to address some of the concerns during our assessment including regarding evacuation procedures, updates to the environment and staff training. Appropriate policies and procedures were in place to support the running of the service. The service’s business continuity form required updating.

The provider understood their duty to collaborate and work in partnership, so services worked well for people. They shared information and learning with partners and collaborated for improvement. The provider understood the requirement to share information with relevant agencies and people’s family and carers to meet help meet people’s needs.

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.

The provider had not sought feedback from people who used the service, their relatives or professionals to ensure they were continually evaluating and improving the service. For example, staff attendance at meetings, was extremely limited and information, therefore, was not communicated in a consistent way. Further work was required to ensure there was genuine collaboration in the changes being made and the running of the service. A relative told us, “I don’t think people are involved enough in the running of the service. We used to be involved, and it felt inclusive. That’s completely gone.” Another relative stated, “When I raise concerns, they listen but there are no changes.’’ There was limited evidence to demonstrate the provider was using innovative practice within the service. Staff were unclear about the training expectations of the provider which did not promote consistent knowledge or learning.