Cary Brook

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.

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 management team had a shared vision, strategy and had developed a positive 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. The management team had led improvements but were keen to keep improving the quality of the service.

Relatives praised the care their family member received. They felt the culture of the home was warm and welcoming. One relative told us, “I can't speak highly enough of the home; everything, the care, the food, the staff are all excellent. The last thing to say is if I need to come into a care home this is the home I would want to come to.” Another relative told us, “There is a nice feel when you walk around. Staff are happy and smiling which reflects on how they feel about their work and impacts on their attitude to work and residents.”

All staff spoken with told us they were keen to provide the best quality of care and support to people as they could. Everything they did was to benefit people living at the home. People were well supported by staff who knew them well. Staff were keen for people to be part of their community.

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

The registered manager was very experienced in managing care services and led by example. People, relatives, and staff were complimentary about how the management team ran the service and the improvements they had made. People felt they experienced a good quality of care.

People and staff told us the registered manager was approachable, visible and had significantly improved the home. One relative said, “[Name] is really good as a manager and [name] is an excellent deputy.” A staff member told us, “Managers are very supportive and kind. It took a long time to get a [permanent] manager. [The registered manager] is approachable. [The deputy manager] is also good and so are the supervisors.”

The registered manager told us they had worked hard to create an open and honest culture. Staff told us they could share ideas or raise concerns with any of the management team.

The management team had developed and fostered a positive culture where people felt they could speak up, and their voice would be heard. People, relatives and staff told us they felt confident to raise concerns with the management team and these would be listened to and acted upon.

There were no formal meetings with people who lived in the home to gain their feedback. These would not suit people as they were living with dementia. The provider was looking at ways to better capture each person’s views, such as using ‘dementia care mapping’ (a quality improvement tool used in care settings to assess care from the perspective of a person living with dementia).

Relatives were often closely involved in their family member’s care and advocated for them. Relatives told us their views were listened to and respected. One relative said, “Communication with me is excellent; they always keep me up to date with things.”

Staff felt their views and suggestions were actively taken on board. It was clear action had been taken in response to the recent staff survey.

Any compliments about the home or staff were recorded. Each one was shared with the staff team. One relative had said their family member had been, “Very happy at Cary Brook and he had received amazing care.” Another person commented about a staff member. They said, “[Staff name] is amazing. She is so kind, she is never rude and just takes such good care of me."

The management team valued diversity in their workforce. The registered manager ensured there was an inclusive and fair culture.

Through talking with people, relatives, staff, and members of the management team, we found care and support was delivered in a non-discriminatory way and the rights of people with a protected characteristic were respected. Protected characteristics are a set of nine characteristics that are protected by law to prevent discrimination. For example, discrimination based on age, disability, race, religion or belief and sexuality.

At the last assessment we found the provider had failed to operate effective systems to assess, monitor and improve the quality of care people received. At this assessment we found many improvements had been made.

Quality assurance processes had been significantly improved. There were a series of quality assurance meetings, monitoring visits, and other checks in place to review the performance of the service. These included audits by the provider’s quality team, visits from the area manager, accident and incident reviews, risk reviews and a review of any complaints and compliments. A staff survey had also been completed in September 2025.

The provider’s quality support manager had completed a ‘readiness review’ in August 2025 (designed to assess the quality of the service and readiness for a CQC assessment). The service scored 71% overall and was rated good. Areas for improvement were noted, and an action plan formed part of the review documents. We noted many of the improvements identified had been carried out before our current assessment started.

The area manager showed us the system they used to monitor the service remotely between their visits. This system showed ‘live’ data so the area manager could review the service in ‘real time’. This was a comprehensive and effective system which promoted people’s safety and the quality of care.

All of the quality assurance checks and the survey had fed into the service improvement plan. This plan was reviewed at the heads of department meetings to ensure improvements were carried out and monitored.

The management team 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.

The registered manager told us how they work closely with the local GP surgery, community nurses, tissue viability nurses, the older people mental health team and the local authority quality assurance team. These professionals had supported the improvements made throughout the service since our last assessment.

The management team were clearly focused on continuous learning and improvement across the organisation and local system. They wanted good outcomes and a good quality of life for people. They had developed safe and effective care practices. Discussions with the management team and staff demonstrated they recognised the importance of learning lessons and continuous improvement to ensure people received care and support that was safe and effective.

The management team used information from feedback, audits, complaints, incidents, and safeguarding alerts to improve the service. The management team worked with staff to understand what happened if things went wrong and involved them in finding solutions to prevent recurrence.