Prema 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 our last assessment we rated this key question inadequate. Scores and ratings have not been changed for this assessment and are based on the previous inspection. This is because no regulated activity was being delivered at the time of this assessment.

This service scored 39 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

We could not make a judgement as there was not enough evidence for us to rate this quality statement.

Due to the limited scope of this assessment, we are unable to comment on the experiences of people using the service.

Due to the limited scope of this assessment, we are unable to comment on the experiences of people using the service.

A new manager had been appointed in February 2026. An application to register with CQC had been submitted. An external management team had been brought in to help support the manager in addressing the breaches of regulation found during our last assessment.

Staff said the management team were approachable and supportive. One staff member said they now felt confident in raising any issues or concerns. Staff also told us, “[Manager] is very approachable. He listens when you talk and lets us show our potential and skills” and “Brilliant, he’s very approachable and has a good rapport with everyone. Down to earth and all the staff like him.”

We could not make a judgement as there was not enough evidence for us to rate this quality statement.

Due to the limited scope of this assessment, we are unable to comment on the experiences of people using the service.

Due to the limited scope of this assessment, we are unable to comment on the experiences of people using the service.

The staff team which comprised of both male and female staff. The team had reduced due to there being only a small number of people living at the service. Records showed information and training was provided in equality and diversity. However, we were unable to determine the impact this had on people as no regulated activity was being provided.

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.

A new governance system had been introduced. This included opportunities for people and staff to share their views through meetings and surveys. New processes, including audits and trackers, had been implemented to monitor complaints, safeguarding concerns, and DoLS. However, no recent incidents or complaints had been reported, limiting the ability to assess their effectiveness.

Regular audits were now in place to check accurate medication stock and record-keeping, with any improvements added to the service improvement plan. Work in relation to the safety and suitability of the premises was also on-going.

While general risk assessments were in place, these focused on clinical tasks not routinely provided at Prema Court. Further assessments should be implemented to reflect the specific needs and types of services offered.

Expectations of people living at Prema Court were clearly outlined within the service user guide. As the service was not providing a regulated activity, we were unable to reflect the experiences of people

The service requires more time to demonstrate systems have been embedded, are consistently completed and provide evidence of sustained and ongoing improvement so people receive safe and effective care.

As the service was not providing a regulated activity, therefore the scope of this assessment was limited. This meant we were unable to rerate the quality statements and the service has been placed in dormancy until such time a regulated activity is being provided.

We could not make a judgement as there was not enough evidence for us to rate this quality statement.

Due to the limited scope of this assessment, we are unable to comment on the experiences of people using the service.

We could not make a judgement as there was not enough evidence for us to rate this quality statement.

Due to the limited scope of this assessment, we are unable to comment on the experiences of people using the service.