Woodville Residential Care 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

We found that systems in place were not always effective in identifying risk at the service. Actions were not always highlighted to show where improvements were needed and who was accountable to drive these forwards. The manager had recently been appointed, they had previously worked at the service and therefore knew it well. They were in the process of registering with CQC and were aware of their responsibilities. Appropriate support was in place for the manager by the regional management team who also oversaw quality at the service. Staff told us they received a good level of support from the management team.

This service scored 50 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

We did not look at Shared direction and culture during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Well-led.

Staff told us they were supported by leaders and confirmed they had regular supervisions. One staff member told us, “My professional opinion is that the manager has a heart of gold, they care and is ambitious to the point they are buzzing”. There were support networks in place for the manager. They were new in post and working towards their registration. They understood their regulatory responsibilities.

The manager completed relevant statutory notifications. The manager was supported by the provider’s regional management team. The regional manager reviewed audits and carried out their own checks of the service. They provided regular on-site support. The manager was in the process of their induction program and was working through completion of relevant training.

We did not look at Freedom to speak up during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Well-led.

We did not look at Workforce equality, diversity and inclusion during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Well-led.

There was no service development plan in place to demonstrate the priorities of the service. This meant that timescales were not identified for improvements and actions were not assigned to people for relevant action to be made. Staff told us they were informed of any areas identified for improvement through regular staff meetings. The manager completed a range of audits monthly. These were also reviewed by the regional manager.

We reviewed the audits completed by the manager. Whilst systems were in place to oversee the service, these were not wholly effective in identifying risk or improving the service. For example, falls and safeguarding audits completed did not contain actions taken by the provider to mitigate any further risks. The manager explained there were priorities for the service, but the provider had no action plan in place to demonstrate how it was working towards making improvements or acting on any feedback.

We did not look at Partnerships and communities during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Well-led.

We did not look at Learning, improvement and innovation during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Well-led.