Prospect House Care 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 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 inadequate. 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.

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.

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 and their communities. For example, staff consistently described feeling valued, listened to and expressed a shared goal of providing high‑quality care for people. Comments such as “everyone is here for the residents,” “it feels like a family,” and “I love coming to work” reflected strong team morale and commitment. The management team was described as visible, empathetic and open, with an “open‑door policy” encouraging staff to share ideas and raise concerns. Families and professionals also reflected this positive culture, describing the home as calm, welcoming and well organised.

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. For example, since the last inspection, a new manager had been appointed and is registered with CQC. The manager understood their role, responsibilities and regulatory requirements, including awareness of which incidents and events needed to be reported to the local authority and the CQC.

Staff described the management team as “approachable,” “considerate,” and “empathetic.” Comments included “there is an open‑door policy,” “we are never pushed into anything,” and “management listen and try to resolve issues.” Staff also said they felt encouraged and supported to develop in their roles, with some reporting progression into more senior positions. A professional partner described the registered manager as “respectful, knowledgeable and friendly” and open to positive criticism.

The provider fostered a positive culture where people felt they could speak up and their voice would be heard. For example, staff told us they had no concerns about raising issues and spoke positively about the leadership team. Staff described the manager and deputy manager as “very approachable,” saying they listened and acted when concerns were raised. One staff member said they felt “comfortable speaking up,” and another explained that management “always listen and act on anything we raise.”

Families also told us they had no concerns about speaking up and said they felt listened to when they raised questions or shared feedback.

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. For example, staff had access to the provider’s policy outlining their commitment to equality, diversity and inclusion, which set clear expectations for fair treatment and respect. Inclusive practices described by staff included flexible working arrangements to support personal and family circumstances, equal access to training and development opportunities, and encouragement for staff to progress into senior roles. Staff told us they felt valued, listened to and treated fairly and described the workplace as supportive and inclusive.

Governance systems were used effectively to manage risk and to deliver good quality, sustainable care, treatment and support. For example, the provider had strengthened governance arrangements to improve oversight, quality and safety. Improved systems were in place to assess, monitor and improve the service, with clearer structures and greater consistency in quality evident.

All audits were completed electronically, and copies were reviewed. These included regular audits covering infection prevention and control, medicines management, staffing, the environment, equipment and overall performance. Audit improvements included clearer action plans, allocated responsibilities and evidence of follow‑up to confirm actions had been completed.

Incident records showed more detailed analysis, identification of themes and documented learning outcomes. Actions were recorded to reduce the risk of recurrence, such as referrals to specialist services or updates to risk assessments. Fire safety monitoring records evidenced regular checks, including fire alarm testing, emergency lighting and fire door checks.

Regular safety checks were completed across the service, and the provider carried out routine visits to monitor standards and provide feedback. Records showed this feedback was acted upon where required.

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. For example, engagement with people and their families took place through regular care reviews, surveys and meetings. Families confirmed there was good and regular communication and said they felt informed and involved.

There was positive partnership working with external organisations, including the local authority and health and social care services. This was confirmed through feedback from professional partners, who described the home as responsive and collaborative. Care records evidenced timely referrals and effective joint working with external services.

The provider focused on continuous learning, innovation and improvement across the organisation and local system. For example, we found clear evidence of learning from the last inspection which had resulted in significant improvements. Records showed improved analysis and reflection following accidents, incidents and complaints, with learning and actions identified to reduce the risk of recurrence. Outcomes and learning were shared with staff through handovers, meetings and supervisions. An up‑to‑date improvement plan was in place, incorporating actions arising from audits, incidents, complaints and feedback, with progress monitored to ensure improvements were embedded and sustained.