Country View Nursing 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 assessment we rated this key question requires improvement. At this assessment the rating has remained requires improvement.

This meant the management and leadership was inconsistent. Leaders and the culture they created did not always support the delivery of high-quality, person-centred care.The service was in breach of legal regulation in relation to good governance.

This service scored 61 (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 developed a positive and caring culture within the home; however, systems and processes did not always demonstrate a clear shared direction or consistent standards across the service. As a result, improvements were needed to ensure quality expectations were fully embedded and consistently applied.

Staff spoke positively about the management team and the support they received. One staff member told us, “The management is very good and if we have any concerns, they are always there to support us.” Another said, “We are like a family here.” We observed warm, caring and respectful interactions throughout the assessment.

Feedback also demonstrated an open culture where information was shared regularly with relatives. One relative told us, “They put out a newsletter, and we get to know who is leaving, joining, qualifications, all very family oriented.”The provider had a vision to further develop the service. However, improvements were needed to strengthen governance arrangements and ensure quality standards were consistently applied across the home. We identified concerns relating to care planning, documentation, risk management and recording systems, which indicated that oversight processes were not always effective. Further work was needed to ensure records were accurate, consistent and regularly reviewed.

The provider had started to make improvements before the end of our assessment. However, these had not yet been fully incorporated into the overall direction of the service to provide assurance that improvements would be sustained.

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. However, the leadership of the service had not always been consistent in relation to governance.

The registered manager and leadership team were open, approachable, and responsive throughout the assessment process. Staff spoke positively about the management team and described them as supportive and accessible. One staff member told us, “They always listen if there is a problem.” Another said, “Management are very supportive and try to help wherever they can.” Staff felt comfortable raising concerns and were confident these would be listened to and acted upon. There was evidence of a caring and respectful atmosphere within the home, and staff felt comfortable approaching leaders with concerns or suggestions.

However, we identified concerns during the assessment that had not been recognised or addressed by leaders before the assessment. This indicated that management oversight and quality assurance processes were not always effective in identifying issues at an early stage.We found examples of limited oversight of clinical practices within the home. For example, prescribed creams were being stored in people's bedrooms rather than in the medication room. Some creams did not have opening dates recorded, and staff were not always clear whether certain creams had been prescribed or supplied by relatives.

Leaders had also not ensured there was sufficient evidence to demonstrate how decisions relating to shared bedrooms had been assessed, reviewed, and agreed in line with the Mental Capacity Act. Records did not clearly show compatibility assessments, consultation with people or their families, or best interest decision-making processes where required.The feedback we received demonstrated that leaders were compassionate and inclusive. However, we found that the leadership of the service had not always been consistent in relation to governance. This lack of consistency had led to the concerns that we identified during our assessment.

The provider fostered a positive culture where people, relatives, and staff felt able to speak up and share their views. There were opportunities for feedback, and people told us they felt listened to.

Staff were able to raise concerns and provide feedback through supervision sessions, staff meetings, and discussions with managers. They demonstrated an understanding of safeguarding and whistleblowing procedures and knew how to report concerns. Staff also knew they could raise concerns anonymously if they preferred.

The registered manager promoted an open and approachable culture within the service. Staff told us the manager had an open-door policy and encouraged feedback, suggestions, and discussion. Staff felt comfortable approaching the management team with concerns and were confident they would be listened to and supported.

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 told us they felt respected, supported, and treated fairly, regardless of their role, background, or personal circumstances.The staff team was diverse, with people from different backgrounds bringing a range of skills, experiences, and perspectives to the service. Staff told us they felt included and believed they had equal opportunities to develop their skills and progress in their careers.Flexible working arrangements were available where needed, demonstrating that the provider was willing to make reasonable adjustments to support staff and promote their wellbeing.Staff had received training in equality and diversity, which helped them understand the importance of treating people fairly, preventing discrimination, and promoting inclusion within the workplace.

The provider had governance systems and processes in place to monitor the quality and safety of the service. However, these systems were not always effective in identifying concerns, monitoring performance, and driving improvement across all areas of the service.

The provider had a range of scheduled audits in place that were completed by the senior staffs and management.However, some audits were basic and lacked sufficient detail. For example, monthly medication audits only contained brief one-line entries and did not clearly show what had been checked. Mattress audits also did not clearly record what had been checked or monitored, reducing assurance around oversight of pressure care equipment and monitoring systems.

During our medication checks, we identified several concerns that had not been identified through the audit process. This demonstrated that audits were not always effective in identifying issues and ensuring appropriate action was taken.Care plans and risk assessments had not always been reviewed or updated following changes in people's needs. Governance systems had not identified inconsistencies and contradictory information within records. For example, review notes were often very limited and simply stated "care plan updated", "unchanged", or "no changes" without providing details of what had been reviewed or discussed. For another person, guidance from the Speech and Language Therapy (SALT) team stated fluids should be prepared using one scoop of thickener per 100mls, while the care plan stated one to two scoops should be used.Although leaders responded positively to feedback during the assessment and assured us improvements would be made, the concerns identified demonstrated that governance and quality assurance systems were not always effective in identifying, monitoring, and addressing issues before they impacted on the quality and consistency of care provided.

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 saw evidence of a range of healthcare and social care professionals involved in people's care, including GPs, dietitians, district nurses, and social workers.The provider also supported people to remain connected to their local community wherever possible. People were encouraged to take part in outings and activities outside the home, including visits to local parks and shops.

The registered manager told us they are members of the Northamptonshire Association of CQC Registered Care Providers (NORARCH) and also attended local authority forums.

The provider did not always demonstrate that learning and improvement had been fully embedded across the service.

While there was a commitment to learning and improvement, and the provider had established a development plan for the service, we found that required improvements had not always been identified or acted on.We found evidence that some concerns identified during this assessment had previously been highlighted by external professionals but had not been fully addressed.Feedback from an Integrated Care Board (ICB) monitoring visit completed in August 2025 had identified recommendations relating to covert medication Mental Capacity Assessments, covert medication protocols, PRN medication protocols, and strengthening falls analysis processes.During this assessment, we identified similar concerns. For example, we found there were no specific Mental Capacity Assessments in place for some people receiving covert medicines, and PRN protocols continued to lack clear and detailed guidance for staff. This showed that previous recommendations had not always been fully implemented or embedded into everyday practice.These findings demonstrated that the provider's approach to learning, improvement, and quality assurance was not always effective in ensuring concerns were addressed and sustained improvements were achieved across the service.The provider reflected on our findings and described the immediate steps they had taken. They also explained how they would continue to monitor and maintain these improvements going forward.