Aronel Cottage Care Home 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

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 changed to good.

This meant the service was consistently managed and well-led. Leaders and the culture they created promoted high-quality, person-centred care.

The provider was previously in breach of legal regulation in relation to safe premises and governance of the home. Improvements were found at this assessment and the provider was no longer in breach of this regulation.

This service scored 68 (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 a shared vision, strategy and culture. This was based on transparency, equity, equality and human rights, diversity and inclusion, engagement, and understanding challenges and the needs of people.

The provider was very proud of the service and the care staff provided to people. The provider was aware of the need to continually improve the service and used an outside auditing agency to give feedback about the service. Staff were caring and understood the importance of kindness and inclusion. A staff member told us, “Old people are important. In my culture it’s very important. I love caring for people.”

The provider had inclusive leaders at all levels who understood the context in which they delivered care, treatment and support and embodied the culture and values of their workforce and organisation. Leaders had the skills, knowledge, experience and credibility to lead effectively. They did so with integrity, openness and honesty.

People knew the names of senior staff and the registered manager and provider. They told us they felt safe and had faith in the staff. When asked about the registered manager people said, “If you want to speak to him, he’s happy to do so.” And “I like him.”

Staff felt happy with the leadership and told us so, a staff member said, ”The manager is really easy to talk to, no problem. I can always go to a manager. I like the job here. It’s friendly and fun, the manager is nice. It’s like a big family. I wouldn’t change anything.”

The management of the staff showed in the staff morale, a person said, “You get to know the staff and you can talk to them. Not all of them, but you get to know some of them and you can be personal with them. They’re very nice, you feel at home with them.”

The provider fostered a positive culture where people and staff felt they could speak up and their voice would be heard.

Staff were encouraged to speak up and the provider told he was happy to talk to staff about anything. Posters in the hallway of the service directed people and staff to various places they could raise concerns, including if they felt unable to address issues with the registered manager for any reason. Staff had appraisals, where various aspects of care and their roles were discussed and the details of these were recorded. A person told us, “You can speak up if you’re not happy. I haven’t had to do that here.”

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 of various nationalities worked together to give safe care to people. Staff worked well together and saw strength in difference. People told us staff were all pleasant, “They couldn’t be nicer or better. They’re very pleasant and helpful.”

The provider did not always have clear responsibilities, roles, systems of accountability or good governance. They did not always act on the best information about risk, performance and outcomes, or share this securely with others when appropriate.

The service was run by two registered managers one of whom was also the provider and both of whom were registered nurses. Senior nursing staff managed some aspects of care such as medicines. There were trained kitchen staff and dedicated cleaning staff and all understood their responsibilities. Quality assurance audits were carried out by various members of the team to ensure standards were maintained. However, audits had not revealed the lack of person-centred care and the provider and manager were unaware of the issues around a lack of choice for people.

We spoke to the provider about this after the assessment and he told us he would look at ways to improve people’s ability to make choices about their care, and to ensure they were more involved in activities inside and outside the home in future.

The service liaised with the local authority when necessary, and the local authority told us the provider managed any concerns that were raised.

The provider understood their duty to collaborate and work in partnership, so services worked seamlessly for people. They shared information and learning with partners and collaborated for improvement.

We received feedback from stakeholders, who told us they worked with the staff and management team. The service worked well with health organisations to ensure people’s wellbeing was continuously maintained. Other healthcare professionals were included in peoples’ care as necessary.

The provider did not always focus on continuous learning, innovation and improvement across the organisation and local system. They did not always encourage creative ways of delivering equality of experience, outcome and quality of life for people. They did not always actively contribute to safe, effective practice and research.

The provider told us they used peoples’ feedback to improve the service. People could feedback via regular residents’ meetings. Staff told us how the menu had been discussed with people and changes made as a result.

However, while people and their relatives were confident to speak to the provider and the registered manager, they did not always feel their requests were acted on. Relatives told us more could be done for activities at the service, making them more specific for things people were interested in, although people enjoyed the entertainment currently provided. A relative said, “There’s a quiz on Tuesdays, and on Friday they have a singer. They have certain things on regularly, it’s nice. The man who does the quiz is so good. They have a man who talks about gardening. They have seasonal parties. They have summer BBQs and Christmas parties.” However a person also told us, “There’s not a lot of activities. They could do with a bit more.” and a relative said “Residents are not always able to suggest new activities when they are asked, so they just say ‘yes, it’s OK’.”

We spoke to the provider after the assessment about the importance of people being involved in activities that had meaning to them.