The Laurels

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 good. At this assessment the rating has changed to requires improvement. This meant the management and leadership was inconsistent.

The service was in breach of the 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 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.

Staff spoke positively about working at the service and generally felt supported in their roles. Some staff spoke of issues in the staff team earlier in the year, but most felt things had improved, and staffing levels and team work were much better. All of the staff we spoke with reflected caring and compassionate values in the way they spoke about the people they supported, and several told us of ideas they had to increase people’s experience of good care. One staff member told us, “[Registered manager] is always at hand to talk to if needed and the [people we support] all think the world of her, their faces all light up when she is around and she always has the time to chat and spend time with them. I also feel that I could talk to [registered manager and deputy manager] about any queries and they would help me. On top of this we receive monthly supervisions to discuss any concerns or training needs that we may have.” Another said, “We're very good at pulling together for help and support if someone is having a tough time. That ‘Laurels family’ is always there to help pick you up.”

The registered manager promoted an ‘open door’ culture for staff, people and families and was transparent in their engagement with them. Relatives felt the overall management was good, but 2 told us that communication could be improved. They told us they had observed the staff teams worked well together, and that the registered manager was always ready to help and listen.

The provider had inclusive leaders at all levels who understood the context in which they delivered care, however, due to temporary changes in management and oversight of the home, quality was not consistently maintained resulting in slow progress with identified improvements, and review of documentation relating to people’s care.

Leaders were open about issues identified within the service and they were responsive to feedback received both during and following our assessment. Most staff told us the management team was visible and approachable. The registered manager had worked at the service for 17 years and had developed a positive culture within the staff team. One staff member told us, “I can’t find the words to describe the support I got [during a difficult time]. Not just [registered manager] but the company. The support is ongoing.” Another told us that although within the service the management were supportive, they did not always feel this was reflected in the senior leaders. They told us, “For [senior managers], it’s all about statistics,graphs and paperwork. [Registered manager] used to really enjoy coming downstairs to cook for everyone and interact with residents and staff, but this rarely happens now due to constant office work demands.” A third staff member told us, “The main improvement that could be made to achieve a well-led shift would be the paperwork that we have in place, there’s a lot of it and sometimes it feels unnecessary to have over 10 pieces of paper to sign for something that could be implemented into one or two sheets.” We fed this back to the registered manager to review.

The provider fostered a positive culture where people felt they could speak up and their voice would be heard. The provider had a whistleblowing policy in place, and staff told us they felt confident to raise concerns if needed. 

Prior to the assessment we received feedback from anonymous staff members that they had not always felt listened to. However, most staff we spoke with said they felt able to raise concerns and they felt they would be listened to. One staff member told us, “[Registered manager] is very approachable, and I genuinely feel listened to. Any concerns or questions are taken seriously and followed up on.” Another said, “The [registered manager] will sometimes ask if there’s anything that I think can help the smooth running of the service.” Staff meetings took place as well as staff surveys. Comments from staff in the most recent survey (September 2025) were collated into an action plan, ‘You said, we did’ outlining how improvements could be made.

Prior to the assessment, we received feedback from staff anonymously that there was a bullying culture from senior management, and that they did not feel listened to. However, during the assessment we spoke with 7 staff who told us that things had improved, and the majority of staff felt valued and enjoyed their role within the service. One staff member told us, “I feel very privileged to be working at The Laurels and to be making a difference to people’s lives. I have never felt like this in a work place and I do believe it because of the way [registered manager] runs and cares so much about the home.” Another said, “Although I have worked in the care environment for over 18 years, this is the first time I have worked with [people with a learning disability]. In all of my years working in care I have never worked in a more welcoming home or one that I believed the residents were truly put first like they are at The Laurels.” There was evidence that de-briefs took place to ensure staff were supported and felt safe.

Staff had completed equality and diversity training. Equality and diversity training is essential to create a safe, respectful, and inclusive environment for people and staff, ensuring that everyone receives the care and support they deserve.

There was evidence of staff meetings and supervisions to show staff were included in decision making. One staff member described how the provider had supported them to work flexibly whilst experiencing personal difficulties which they really appreciated.

Formal monthly governance meetings were in place at the time of inspection, however, the provider did not consistently demonstrate that the governance systems in place were effective. Multiple audits were also in place which identified where improvements were needed, but actions to address these had not always been acted on without delay. Some of these actions included the shortfalls we identified during the assessment, particularly related to risk assessments, and care documentation generally. This was attributed to the registered manager’s time on site between The Laurels and another of the providers locations. The provider had put systems in place in the interim to ensure the service had daily management oversight, however, these systems had not been effective in maintaining the quality of documentation or the actioning of improvements which had been identified via an internal quality audit. However,the provider and registered manager were committed to making improvements in a timely manner. There was a new deputy manager in post who began updating documentation during day 1 of the assessment. The registered manager was aware of the need to focus on making the identified improvements and had raised this during their own supervision session. They told us, “I have several plans for the coming months to further improve our service delivery. I remain fully committed to continuous improvement for our residents, families, and staff.”

The provider understood their duty to collaborate and work in partnership, so services worked seamlessly for people.

People had access to activities in the home and were also supported to attend social events in the community. External agencies visited the home to further support people’s social care needs where required. A social care professional told us, “I find the service responsive to anything that arises, there has been teething issues in that time, as to be expected with any placement. When issues or incidents occur, I have found the management team to be proactive in their response. The team at The Laurels show kindness care and compassion towards the [people they support] and appear to know the people as individuals.”

The provider mostly focused on continuous learning and improvement across the organisation,such as technology being used to improve outcomes for people. However, there was further opportunity to encourage creative ways of delivering outcomes and quality of life for people. For example, consideration of creative activities and ensuring regular reviews were undertaken to ensure participation in activity was meeting people’s needs and building people’s skills. The provider and registered manager welcomed our feedback and took some immediate actions to address issues we identified during our inspection visit. There were plans to empower the staff team and develop champion roles (where staff have additional knowledge in specific subjects to share good practice across the team). The provider and registered manager also welcomed the opportunity to enhance staff training to include an evidence-based end of life care service improvement programme, and workshops hosted by external clinicians.