Waterside Grange

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. At our last assessment we rated this key question requires improvement. At this assessment the rating has remained 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 provider was previously in breach of the legal regulation in relation to good governance. Not enough improvement was found at this assessment, and the provider remained in breach of this regulation.

This service scored 54 (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 did not have a clear shared vision, strategy and culture which was based on transparency, equity, equality and human rights, diversity and inclusion, and engagement. They did not always understand the challenges and the needs of people and their communities. The management team was a newly established team, and systems required improving to become effective. They were focused on addressing historical concerns and working alongside external professionals. Staff did not feel part of a shared direction of the service, commenting that they rarely saw the management team. When we asked staff if they were involved in the running of the home they commented, “When staff try and speak to management about any issues, they are often told they [management] are too busy.” One staff member said, “It would help if management had an hour free a week for staff to raise concerns with them, so they felt listened to.”

Not all leaders understood the context in which the provider delivered care, treatment and support. They did not always embody the culture and values of their workforce and organisation. Leaders did not always have the skills, knowledge, experience and credibility to lead effectively, or they did not always do so with integrity, openness and honesty. The current management team were looking at ways to improve this and had commenced a ‘talk to me Tuesday’ where members of the senior management team would be available for people, relatives and staff. These new systems needed to be embedded into practice. People and relatives told us they did not know who the manager was. One person said, “No, I don’t know the manager, I think they have had a new lady come in.” Another person said, “I don’t know the manager.” One relative said, “I think the manager’s name is [name] I think they have had 3 managers since [relative] arrived in July 2024.”

People did not always feel they could speak up and that their voice would be heard. The provider had a whistleblowing policy and staff knew how to use this. However, they also felt some concerns had not been addressed.

The provider did not always value diversity in their workforce. They did not always work towards an inclusive and fair culture by improving equality and equity for people who worked for them. We received mixed feedback from staff regarding the management team. Some staff felt management had addressed concerns they raised with them whilst others said, they did not see management often during shifts unless something goes wrong. Staff told us there was no praise or gratitude for staff and no regular team meetings. When meetings did take place staff felt reluctant to attend due to feeling they would not be listened to.

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. Audits viewed needed further development and embedding in to practice to ensure they identified current issues in the home and actions taken to address them.

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. Staff told us a variety of health and social care professionals were involved in supporting people. Visiting professionals had noticed an improvement since the current management team had been in place. They felt staff knew people well and understood how to meet their needs. One visiting professional said, “They seem to have enough staff. Staff know people well and are helpful.”

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. Meetings took place for people and relatives, but we were informed these were infrequent. People also told us they did not have the opportunity to raise their views such as completing a quality survey. One person said, “No, there’s nothing like that.” Staff told us they often raised issues with management without a response. Recent concerns have been in regard to lack of food variety and temperatures in some areas of the home. We raised these concerns with the management team who confirmed they had taken action to resolve them.