Whitegates Care Centre Limited

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 inspection in March 2023 the provider was in breach of regulation because they had failed to operate effective governance systems and to continuously improve the service. The provider had made some improvements but not enough to meet the breach of regulation. Staff told us they did not always have appropriate, clear guidance, direction and support to be able to provide person-centred, high-quality care to people. The provider failed to identify and address issues with how staffing was managed and reviewed in the service. People’s and staff’s feedback was not always effectively reviewed and actioned. There was no registered manager in the home, although there was a manager overseeing the day-to-day running of the service. The home manager was supported by the provider’s senior leadership 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.

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.

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.

Staff said they did not feel they had clear guidance and support to fulfil their roles well. They told us the managers were not always clear when allocating responsibilities, which meant they were not able to fulfil them in their day-to-day work. Staff also said they did not always feel supported by the management. Staff comments included, “Communication is really bad. As colleagues we value each other, but management don’t value us. We are not listened to. Supervision is a waste of time. There is no point of them. We are told we have to complete our jobs within a certain time, but we can’t hurry people, that is not what our job is about. That’s not person-centred care.” and “The job is so task driven now. There is no point in going to staff meetings – we’re not listened to” and “The problem is communication.” The manager told us they felt well supported by the provider, “They [senior leaders] are all very encouraging and supportive. They are happy with my plans, and I believe I have their trust to get on with the job.” The provider’s staff surveys included positive feedback from staff around the support they received in their roles and some staff’s feedback had improved from survey to survey. However, there was no evidence available confirming the surveys were robustly analysed to address staff suggestions for improvement at the time they had been completed or to seek further feedback around the issues raised, such as communication.

The governance and management processes were not always effective to ensure quality of the care people received. The management team did not always take effective action to address people’s and staff’s feedback, for example, around staffing levels and staff deployment in the service. People’s meetings showed repeated issues were raised and there was little assurance on actions taken by management to resolve those issues. There was no registered manager in place in the home, although there was a manager overseeing the day-to-day running of the service. The provider did not effectively oversee the management of short term stays and admissions to the home and failed to recognise and action concerns raised by members of the staff team. However, some improvements had been made since the last inspection. For example, the provider put a range of measures in place to improve communication with healthcare professionals around admission planning. This included weekly and monthly multidisciplinary meetings with the local NHS Trust, provider’s senior leadership team and frailty and social care representatives from the local authority. The provider also increased the frequency of staff meetings to enable staff to share their feedback. Management of risk to people had improved since the last inspection.

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.