July VII Limited t/a Wykenhurst 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

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 inspection we rated this key question good. The overall rating for this key question remains good.

This service scored 75 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

Staff and leaders shared the same vision and values to provide the best care to people and to work well as a team.

The home had a clear vision which the staff team worked in line with. This included to provide a warm and welcoming ‘home’ to people, by continuously improving and supporting each other by prioritising residents’ wellbeing at all times and remember we work in their home they do not live in our workplace, respecting people’s right to confidentiality, clear concise communication, to be accountable for all we do, complete all work to the best of our ability, always be open and honest and to own up to mistakes and learn from them. Staff understood and had received equality, diversity and human rights training.

Staff spoke positively about the management team and felt they were approachable, supportive, and competent leaders. The registered manager knew people well; they could tell us in detail people’s needs, likes and preferences. They had a good understanding of their role and regulatory responsibilities. The registered manager was enthusiastic about the work they did and open to feedback and learning. The registered manager told us they were supported in their role. They were provided with relevant training and would be supported to access any further training or development needs if this was identified.

The way managers made themselves available and ensured good governance and oversight of the service was recognised by people and their relatives. One person said, “I think they are doing a very good job here and I am very happy with the home. The managers are doing a good job.” Another person told us, “I speak with them (management team) regularly and we chat about the home and things that might be happening here. It’s a really nice home and I have absolutely no complaints. Keep up the good work.” A relative said, “[Manager’s name] is brilliant and so aware of what is happening with all the residents they are totally on to anything that needs doing.” Another relative said, “The home is very well run, and the manager is very experienced and effective.”

The registered manager was passionate and motivated about the work they do. They worked with people, relatives, staff and other professionals to instil a culture of care which valued and promoted people's individuality, protected their rights and enabled them to live the lives they wished. The registered manager was open about lessons learnt and actions taken to prevent recurrence. They understood duty of candour and their responsibilities. They had ensured relatives were kept up to date with any concerns about people's care needs. Staff knew how to raise concerns, were able to feedback suggestions and ideas for improvements and felt listened to.

The provider had up to date raising concerns, freedom to speak up and whistleblowing policy and procedure in place and information for staff on how to raise concerns. People, relatives, and staff were actively encouraged to feedback either formally or informally. For example, through individual conversations, at 'residents' meetings, via surveys, during staff meetings and supervisions.

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.

Staff told us there were regular staff meetings where they could discuss their ideas, opinions and could contribute. The registered manager had a good understanding of their responsibilities. They could explain how they maintained oversight of people’s care and quality and safety of the service.

Regular audits and checks were carried out by the management team. Audits had not always identified areas of improvement or risk. For example, not all windows had restrictors on which posed a risk to people. Not all radiators had covers on and some areas had piping exposed. This meant people could be at risk of severe burns if they were to come into contact with it. We shared this with the provider who immediately acted on this following our onsite visit.

Professionals working with home provided positive feedback to the registered manager. One said to the registered manager, “That we are very self-sufficient home and do not call on the surgery for unnecessary support. We appear to know how to deal with queries appropriately and know when to ask for support. They also said it was refreshing to hear how we utilise residents PRN medications and do not overuse these.” Another professional told the registered manager, “We are a nice home to deal with as we do not inundate the surgery with constant medical queries or adding residents to ward rounds unnecessarily and, complimented on how well staff know the residents and quickly pick up on concerns, they felt we know how and when it is appropriate to escalate to the surgery.”

The registered manager told us they had good relationships and worked closely and in partnership with other organisations to support care provision. For example, professionals such as GP, emergency care practitioner (ECP), pharmacist, senior mental health nurse, advocate and consultant psychiatrist.

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.