Alcazar 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.

This is the first assessment for this newly registered service. This key question has been rated 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.

Leaders described the organisation’s aim as creating a better everyday life for people receiving care and for staff The provider helped staff to understand their visions and values through inductions, training and meetings Staff understood that they were expected to promote choice, independence and dignity, challenge poor practice and report concerns.

People’s experiences reflected this culture. People said they could make everyday choices, come and go from their own flats and ask for changes to support. Relatives described staff as caring, attentive and responsive. This meant the stated values were evident in how people experienced care, rather than remaining only organisational statements.

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. The service had a registered manager who had progressed from care worker to team leader, deputy manager and registered manager. They received regular supervision and could access further training and operational support. Staff consistently described managers as accessible, supportive and willing to act when concerns were raised. People and relatives also reported positive contact with leaders. People said the manager visited them, checked their wellbeing and was available when needed. A relative described the manager as helpful and professional and said they felt comfortable raising issues. This gave people confidence that leaders understood day-to-day care and would respond when support needed to change.

The provider fostered a positive culture where people felt they could speak up and their voice would be heard.

Staff said they could raise concerns during handovers, supervision and team meetings and approach managers at any time. The organisation also provided an externally managed whistleblowing line and anonymous surveys, giving staff and people using the service routes to raise concerns outside the local management structure.

People and relatives said they could contact the manager, request changes and make complaints. This showed people had practical routes to speak up and evidence that concerns could lead to action.

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.

Equality and diversity policies applied to staff as well as people using the service. Leaders described making reasonable adjustments to individual working arrangements and offering staff a choice of supervisor where appropriate. Staff wellbeing was discussed through regular supervision, handovers and an open-door management approach.

Staff said managers listened and tried to help when personal or work-related issues were raised. These arrangements supported staff to remain well, feel respected and provide consistent care.

The provider had clear responsibilities, roles, systems of accountability and good governance. They used these to manage and deliver good quality, sustainable care, treatment and support. They acted on the best information about risk, performance and outcomes, and shared this securely with others when appropriate.

Governance arrangements included care plan reviews, audits, medicines checks, competency observations, spot checks, surveys, incident reviews and staff meetings. Managers used information from these checks to identify gaps in performance, arrange retraining and update care documentation. Staff understood their responsibility to complete accurate records and protect people’s confidentiality.

Digital systems provided additional oversight of visit attendance, duration and medicines support. This oversight helped managers to identify and act when improvements were needed.

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.

The service worked with a range of external professionals such as GPs, community health teams and the housing provider. Staff shared observations from people’s homes, followed up referrals and escalated matters where concerns remained unresolved.

This resulted in practical outcomes for people, including GP treatment, specialist referrals, equipment, safer home arrangements and support to remain at Alcazar Court. For example, the provider arranged for a flu vaccination clinic to visit the service, reducing practical barriers for people who might find community appointments difficult to access. People and relatives therefore had greater reassurance that emerging concerns would be followed through rather than passed between organisations.

The provider focused on continuous learning, innovation and improvement across the organisation and local system. They encouraged creative ways of delivering equality of experience, outcome and quality of life for people. They actively contributed to safe, effective practice and research. Leaders used incidents, complaints, audits, feedback and staff observations to identify learning and improve practice. Learning from a safeguarding investigation at another service was anonymised and shared across the organisation. Managers reinforced expectations about inclusive communication, professional boundaries, dignity, nutrition, accurate recording and promoting independence through team discussions, supervision and observational spot checks.

Assistive technology restored 1 person’s privacy and independence. The mobility assessment carried out by the service led to physiotherapy and equipment targeted to risks observed in the person’s home. This enabled the person to take a more active part in service led activities. People reported a greater sense of belonging and benefits that resulted from activities, including feeling less stressed and sleeping better after music therapy.

These examples showed a cycle of identifying a need, trying a proportionate response, listening to people and reviewing impact.