The Court

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 the last inspection we rated this key question good. At this inspection the rating has remained good. This meant the service was consistently managed and well-led. Leaders and the culture they created promoted high-quality, person-centred care. 

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.

The provider promoted a person‑centred, rights‑based approach which was embedded into everyday practice. The service emphasised fairness, dignity, respect, equality and autonomy, and staff were able to describe how these values guided their work, including adapting communication, structuring choices to reduce anxiety and supporting people to maintain family relationships and independence. Staff found The Court was an inclusive place to work. Staff consistently reported feeling valued and proud of their roles, which contributed to a stable and motivated workforce. Relatives and professionals consistently described a positive culture. Relatives told us they trusted staff and professionals highlighted how staff consistently ensured people were at the centre of care.

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 always did so with integrity, openness and honesty. Staff described managers and senior staff as approachable, supportive and responsive. Overall, they found concerns were taken seriously and addressed in a timely way.

The provider fostered a positive culture where people felt they could speak up and their voice would be heard. Most staff felt able to raise concerns, suggest improvements and challenge practice where needed. They were generally confident that their views would be listened to and acted upon. Clear policies and procedures supported whistleblowing and reporting discrimination or safeguarding concerns. Leaders encouraged open discussion through regular staff meetings, handovers and alternative routes for feedback for staff who could not attend meetings. This approach supported a culture of openness and learning across the service.

The provider and management team valued diversity in their workforce and ensured they followed best practices guidance. They worked towards an inclusive and fair culture by improving equality and equity for people who work for them. Mandatory equality and diversity training was in place for all staff, with refresher training to maintain awareness of protected characteristics and discrimination. Leaders also completed quarterly audits to identify potential barriers to inclusion. Staff wellbeing was prioritised. Staff described feeling respected and supported, regardless of background or belief. This inclusive approach supported staff morale, retention and the delivery of consistent care.

The provider and management team had clear responsibilities, roles, systems of accountability and good governance. The management team used audits, incident reviews and feedback to identify learning and drive improvement. Medicines management oversight was effective, with all people receiving regular medication reviews and no missed reviews reported in the previous 12 months. Staffing was planned around individual needs using personalised ratios, key‑worker systems and structured rotas. The provider ensured routine service reviews were completed, and these reviews captured the views of people who used the service, their relatives and friends as well as staff. Information from the reviews was used to determine how the service would develop going forward.

The service clearly understood and carried out their duty to collaborate and work in partnership, and services worked seamlessly for people. The Court had strong, established relationships with learning disability teams, GP multi‑disciplinary teams, speech and language therapy and occupational therapy services as well as the provider’s own specialists. These partnerships supported coordinated care planning, safer eating and drinking, improved communication and increased independence. Professionals described the staff team as proactive and committed, noting their active participation in MDT meetings and outpatient appointments. Commissioners reported positive relationships and no safeguarding concerns. These partnerships helped ensure people received holistic and responsive care.

The provider and management team focused on continuous learning, innovation and improvement across the organisation and local system. They demonstrated a commitment to continuous learning and improvement. Incidents, safeguarding concerns and audits were used to identify learning and strengthen practice. Staff described being involved in reviewing how the service worked and testing new ways of working, with suggestions welcomed and implemented where appropriate.

The service invested in specialist training, champion roles (including communication and sensory champions) and the ongoing development of its STEP support model, informed by lived experience. Leaders were open about barriers, such as recruitment issues, and showed awareness of the impact on quality and morale. This reflective approach supported ongoing improvement and helped sustain the quality of care.