Woodfields Residential Home

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

Our rating for this key question remains ‘requires improvement’. We identified 1 breach of the legal regulations. There were not always systems in place to monitor and improve the care provided . The systems in place were not effective as they had not identified areas of improvement. However, the staff felt it was a good place to work. They were involved with the service and were able to raise their concerns.

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.

Other than telling us they attended team meetings it was unclear if staff were aware of the culture and direction or how they were involved with this . The registered manager spoke of a positive culture in the home they said, “The culture is very open, we like to involve with staff and get their perspective”. Staff raised no concerns to us. No one was able to share any specific values that the home focused on.

There were processes in place to ensure there was a shared direction and culture of the service., However there was no process to show how these procedures were followed or reviewed, this meant concerns may not be acted upon in a timely manner.

Staff spoke positively about the support they received from the registered manager; they told us they attended team meetings and supervisions and had the opportunity to share any concerns. They felt the registered manager was supportive and would act on their concerns .

A lack of understanding of the importance of effective governance systems from the leaders in the home meant the governance systems were not always in place or effective, this meant leaders did not fully understand their roles. This led to a lack of oversight of people’s care and placed them at risk of unsuitable care. Care staff were aware of their roles and responsibilities.

The registered manager confirmed there were whistleblowing policies and procedures in place and told us they encouraged staff to raise any concerns. The staff we spoke with were aware of the whistleblowing policy and felt confident to speak up if needed.

There was a whistleblowing policy in place, however, there were no processes in place to monitor if any concerns had been raised or actions taken.

The registered manager told us there were policies in place to ensure staff were supported with their individual needs. Staff told us they were happy working in the home and felt they were treated in a fair way.

The lack of recruitment procedures in place meant staffs individual and diverse needs were not always identified or considered as information about staff was not always available. There was no evidence to suggest staff were unfairly treated.

The registered manager confirmed there were no audits in place to monitor the care people received including internal IPC audits, health and safety audits, staff files audits or audits of people care.

The systems to manage performance and risks to the quality of the service were ineffective. The only audit the service shared with us was the medicines audit which had not identified the concerns we found in relation ‘as required’ protocols and stick level.

People and relatives raised no concerns to us and felt the home worked in partnership with other agencies.

Both the registered manager and staff told us how they worked in partnership with other agencies. The registered manager did confirm the most up to date information about people was not always available in the home. For example, when someone needed support with their continence needs .

As part of this assessment, we asked for feedback from the local authority. They had no up-to-date information to provide to us.

There were no effective systems in place to ensure they worked in partnership with other agencies. Although people were referred for support when needed there was a lack of oversight of people’s changing needs and care. Care notes or plans and were not audited and this meant action may not always be taken when needed.

The registered manager had observed where some improvements were needed however confirmed there was no action plan or audit of this taking place. They confirmed they had not identified where learning in keys areas such as medicines management was needed. However, staff felt they were asked and involved with how the home was run and attended staff meeting to discuss any concerns.

The were no effective systems in place that enabled safety and quality concerns to be identified and acted on. However, we found no concerns with people’s safety. This meant learning, improvement and innovation were not always promoted.