Winsford Grange 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

At the last assessment we rated this key question as inadequate. At this assurance visit the rating has remained inadequate. We observed improvements in the environmental appearance and furniture including the kitchen, however, issues identified had been also identified in the recent assessment in relation to governance and oversight, wound management, oversight of accidents and incidents and moving and handling of people training and competency not being assessed for staff.

This service scored 25 (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.

We did not look at Capable, compassionate and inclusive leaders during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Well-led.

Staff shared with us they did not always feel they could speak up and their voice would be heard and did not feel listened to by all leaders. However, several staff spoken with shared since the new manager was in post they had been listening to staff, and they were starting to feel listened to and they could see improvements in the environment.

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.

The provider did not have clear systems of accountability and good governance to include analysis and oversight. There was no consistency on the management of wound care and oversight was ineffective. Staff were rostered to support people without adequate training in moving and handling and repositioning people. Staff competence in applying topical medications and the use of thickening agents were not assessed. Environmental checks were not being carried out. We identified areas requiring locking and securing were left unlocked. Infection control and mattress checks were ineffective to detect mattresses that were compromised and equipment that required cleaning. Staff placement and visibility was unsafe at times when observed. We observed people mobilising without their equipment and people accessing out of order areas, people were not supported appropriately at mealtimes in their rooms as a number of people were in bed being supported with their evening meals leaving people to eat food on their own that required some assistance. Oversight of accident and incidents was not robust, the incident tracker did not contain information to mitigate risk, and any lessons learnt. Preventative measures implemented or required action and lessons learnt were not always completed despite this being a component of the accident and incident tracker. We were not assured through either a root cause analysis or assessment of how people who required support with repositioning and moving and handling incurred injuries and bruising. Staff spoken with were positive about the new manager in post, describing them as a listener, approachable and visible often in the service talking with people and staff.

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.