Walshaw Hall

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

The service was not always well-led. We found that some mandatory training had not been completed by staff and not all staff had received regular supervisions. Improvements were being made by the new manager, including implementing new training systems, and oversight of staff. The service had the correct policies and procedures in place and had established good links with other health and social care services within the area. The majority of staff were positive about management support; however, some staff members did raise concerns about staffing levels, particularly for individuals with higher dependency needs. We found ancillary staff sometimes had been deployed at meal times due to staff shortages.

This service scored 71 (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 received mixed feedback from staff on the management of the home. Some members of staff told us they felt supported in their role, received regular feedback and could air any concerns. Staff gave positive feedback about the new deputy manager and were complimentary about the support given by the wider management team. Comments included, "They have been amazing; the home has been well managed since I’ve been working here." Negative feedback centred around staffing levels within different parts of the home and issues raised at staff meetings not always being acted upon.

The registered manager and senior staff were very visible in the home. We saw them being involved and communicating with people. On our first day of assessment the manager was scheduled to have a fit persons interview. They achieved registration with CQC on the second day of our assessment. People told us, "I am confident that the home is well managed; the manager comes round every day" and "the home is well managed; I have no complaints." We found that whilst quality checks and audits were undertaken by management, improved oversight of staff supervision and training was required. Some staff members had not completed mandatory training or received regular supervision. The registered manager discussed these issues with us and demonstrated the tools in place to make improvements. Engagement with people and their relatives was evidenced. At the time of our assessment a survey was taking place and some responses had been received.

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.

Whilst some staff members felt supported and listened to, they fed back that more action could be taken when issues were raised at team meetings. Some staff members also had concerns over staffing levels, particularly in parts of the home that cared for people with higher dependency needs. Management told us that senior leaders were supportive and that they were in contact with them on a weekly basis.

There were some governance systems used effectively within the home, including falls audits. Reviews of care were carried out but were sometimes delayed. The appointment of senior management had helped with this. We found some shortfalls in oversight of staff training, supervisions, management of medicines and repositioning records. The newly appointed Registered Manager was aware of these issues, and had systems in place to improve in these areas. The home had processes in place to notify the Local Authority and CQC of significant events, including reportable incidents and safeguarding concerns.

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.