Wurel House

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 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 requires improvement. At this assessment the rating has remained requires improvement. This meant the management and leadership was inconsistent. Leaders did not always support the delivery of high-quality, person-centred care.

The service was in continued breach of legal regulation in relation to good governance. We have asked the provider for an action plan in response to the concerns found at this assessment.

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 set out their vision and values for the service and shared these with staff. These were based on keeping people safe and providing compassionate and effective care. They told us they monitored staff were working towards the values through staff meetings and spot checks. Staff were positive about the culture of the service and were proud of their role and the work they undertook. The service provided support to people when they left hospital. This was short term support aimed at supporting people to leave hospital and settle back into the community. One staff told us, “We change lives in the community. We help people have an opportunity to recover.”

Feedback from staff regarding the provider was positive. Staff clearly expressed they felt well supported by the provider. One staff said, “I feel well supported, he is a kind person. He’s supportive and is there when you need it.” However, there were areas where improvement was needed specific to completing assessments and building these in to care plans and risk assessments to ensure care plans and risk assessments included enough details.

The provider fostered a positive culture where people felt they could speak up and their voice would be heard. The provider was accessible to people and staff. Staff told us they were able to speak directly with the provider and meet with them as and when they needed to. One staff said, “He does make changes when I raise concerns.” Staff also had regular support and supervision meetings with the provider to discuss their role and practice within their work.

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. Staff told us they felt valued by the provider. They gave us examples of when the provider had supported them and protected them from inequality and discrimination. One staff said, “[The provider is] supportive and is there when you need it.”

Whilst there have been improvements over the last 4 inspections, this is the fourth consecutive inspection where we found care plans, risk assessments and care records were incomplete or lacking in detail. For example, there was a lack of information on how staff should support people with slide sheets. Immediately after the inspection concerns were addressed and we found no evidence of people being harmed. However, quality assurance systems had continued to not prove effective at ensuring some risks to people’s health were assessed, monitored and mitigated prior to the inspection visit. Records of people’s care was not always complete as some care notes lacked detail.

The provider understood their duty to collaborate and work in partnership. They shared information with partners and collaborated for improvement. The provider worked with the rapid response team to support people to leave hospital when they were ready to do so. People were linked to health and social care professionals such as physiotherapy and occupational therapists to assist them with rehabilitation following a stay in hospital where this was appropriate. Staff also worked alongside services such as the district nurses to improve outcomes for people. Staff were aware of the guidance provided by health care professionals.

The service had continued to improve and there were no longer significant concerns about the safety of care provision. Staff were confident the registered manager would take action to improve the service when concerns arose. However, quality assurance systems had not always identified where improvements were needed.