Eliot Gardens

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 service under the new provider. This key question has been rated outstanding. This meant service leadership was exceptional and distinctive. Leaders and the culture they created drove and improved high-quality, person-centred care.

This service scored 89 (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 very clear shared vision, strategy and culture. This was based on transparency, equity, equality and human rights, diversity and inclusion, engagement, and an exceptional understanding of the challenges and the needs of people and their communities.

The provider had a clear Statement of Purpose which outlined their mission and values. The mission was “to support people to live the life they want, their way.” To achieve this, the provider had set out a series of objectives, which included a “do with, not for” approach, empowering people to choose the kind of life they want to lead and seeing every day as an opportunity to make a difference to people’s lives.” Leaders and staff consistently modeled the values which were teamwork, honesty, respect and dignity, innovation, value, and empowerment. The mission, objectives and values ensured people were at the heart of the service.

The provider also had an environmental vision and mission which was to become net zero (to balance the amount of greenhouse gasses so total output equals zero) by 2050. We observed current projects such as people growing their own vegetables in a greenhouse which reduced the providers carbon footprint. The provider sent regular updates to the staff regarding the advances they were making towards their goal.

Leaders had a good knowledge of the providers values. The registered manager told us staff were introduced to the values when they completed their induction and staff meetings regularly revisited them.

Leaders demonstrated a positive, compassionate, listening culture that promoted trust and understanding between them and people using the schemes. There was a strong organisational commitment towards ensuring there was equality and inclusion across the workforce. The provider had partnered with a consultancy firm who were hosting a series of listening sessions to provide staff an opportunity to speak up, share their stories and provide feedback about EDI to ensure they were seen, heard and valued. We observed leaders speaking with staff, relatives, and people in a respectful manner.

The extra care schemes had a positive culture which was person centred, open, inclusive and empowering. Leaders were available, consistent, and led by example. They modeled open, cooperative relationships.

Staff spoke with pride about working for the provider and described a strong sense of collective responsibility for supporting people to live fulfilled and self – directed lives. Staff told us there was a culture of collaboration, where people and staff were listened to and communicated with, to help promote learning and development. Staff were confident to suggest new ideas, which encouraged continuous learning, innovation and reflective practice. There were high levels of satisfaction across all staff.

The provider had exceptionally 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 always did so with integrity, openness, and honesty.

The leaders had the experience, integrity and skills which ensured the providers vision, mission and values were being delivered and risks were professionally managed. The leaders had a vast amount of experience within health and social care and were responsive to any feedback we provided during the inspection. Leaders were able to provide data which we requested in a timely manner, reflecting oversight of systems and procedures.

The registered manager felt well supported in their role and it was evident they had a good working relationship with the head of the service.

Leaders at every level were visible and led by example, modelling inclusive behaviours. We observed how staff were aware of all levels of leadership and were comfortable in their presence. We observed leaders in the communal areas of the schemes at times, engaging with staff and people, and not enclosed in their office areas.

The leaders had knowledge of the current issues and priorities for the schemes which included background hours being required from the local authority to enhance activities for people. Background hours allow staff who are on site the availability to respond to emergencies or provide ad hoc support, whilst not delivering planned or scheduled care. The leaders also wanted to work to integrate the 3 schemes together and had ambitions to grow the business further.

Staff told us leaders had the appropriate skills, knowledge, and experience to do their jobs competently. They felt leaders, including senior managers, were visible within the schemes and were approachable.

Partners were complimentary about the leadership team including the registered manager and service leads. A partner said “[The registered manager] is very knowledgeable about all things care and support and is very passionate to get it right for the residents and [their] staff team. [The registered manager] is amazing at getting things done and making sure [their] teams can deliver an exceptional quality of service.”

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

Staff and leaders acted with openness, honesty, and transparency. Leaders fully understood their responsibilities around Duty of Candour and evidence how they had always adhered to this.

The provider had appropriate systems and processes which ensured staff who needed to raise concerns could. This included a ‘whistleblowing policy’ which contained appropriate details and had local contacts which staff could use if required.

Leaders encouraged staff to raise concerns and ensured there were opportunities for staff to speak up, including staff meetings and employee forums. They also had various levels of management from service leads to area managers. Staff we spoke to seemed to know all the management at all levels and felt comfortable raising concerns if they had them.

The schemes initially did not have contact information regarding freedom to speak up within their staff rooms, we raised this with leaders, and this was soon resolved.

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.

The provider understood their responsibilities to promote equality, diversity, and inclusion (EDI). They had up-to-date EDI policies and procedures, staff were trained in EDI, and they had employed a consultant with expertise in this area who had been providing EDI workshops to staff.

The provider recognised cultural differences between staff members dependent on their ethnic origin. They provided support to non-British staff including developing a cookbook to help staff understand traditional British meals.

The registered manager provided examples in which leaders had supported staff’s needs including flexible working hours, allowing them to take time off for appointments and supporting them through physical and psychological challenges.

Staff told us all staff were treated fairly, regardless of protected characteristics. Staff did not have any concerns their human rights were not being met.

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.

The provider ensured there were clear and effective governance, management, and accountability arrangements. The leaders held and attended regular meetings which included team meetings, senior meetings and meetings between themselves and the housing provider. People could also raise any concerns through monthly tenant meetings.

The provider had robust systems and processes in relation to safeguarding concerns, complaints, care records, and incidents. Care records were regularly audited, and although some minor alterations were required, overall, they were detailed and person centred.

The provider ensured people’s feedback was collated via surveys and was overwhelmingly positive for 2025, however the survey had been completed for all the provider’s services in the local area. The provider also completed staff surveys which staff answered positively. For example, from 28 staff, they all felt supported in the workplace, felt they had good working relationships with their colleagues and felt they had enough time to support people.

Staff had a clear understanding of their roles, responsibilities, and lines of accountability, which supported effective teamwork and consistent service delivery.

Staff told us management ran the schemes smoothly. They confirmed team meetings occurred and knew about audits taking place. A staff member said, “The service is well organised, and we all have a clear idea of what our roles are on a daily basis.”

The provider had business continuity plans in place at all 3 schemes. These clearly outlined procedures to maintain safe and consistent service delivery during emergencies, such as staffing shortages, loss of utilities or other operational disruptions.

The provider clearly understood and performed their duty to collaborate and worked in partnership, and services worked seamlessly for people. They always shared information and learning with partners and collaborated for improvement.

Staff and leaders were open and transparent, and they collaborated with all relevant external stakeholders and agencies. The local quality performance officer from the council attended the onsite inspection and told us relationships with the 3 separate schemes were good. They told us staff and leaders were “meticulous” in their approach and had regular meetings with leaders to ensure oversight was provided.

The provider actively engaged in a range of forums including local authority quarterly partnership meetings, recruitment forums, and steering groups, including one for the new development – Meadow View Court. Partners told us how integral the provider had been in the development and running of services within the borough, providing their expertise and experience regarding extra care.

Other partners agreed, stating “the provider works in a highly collaborative and joined-up way with professionals and partner agencies to support both individual outcomes and wider service development. They are open to feedback, actively seek input from social care teams, and are committed to continuous improvement. Staff are approachable and responsive, and they value professional relationships, which helps create a shared understanding of goals and priorities. This collaborative approach contributes to more effective planning and delivery of care across the community.”

The provider actively engaged with the local community and helped them contribute to the shaping of the schemes. The new scheme, Meadow View Court, had been built next to a local primary school and the provider worked in partnership with the school to allow the children to support with some of the gardening tasks. Leaders told us school children attended another scheme to engage in joint activities which offered stimulating, purposeful engagement for people and the children alike.

The provider had a strong focus on continuous learning, innovation and improvement across the organisation and local system. They always encouraged creative ways of delivering equality of experience, outcome and quality of life for people. They actively contributed to safe and effective practice.

Leaders and staff consistently incorporated the views of people using the service and the local community to drive development and evaluation of improvement. We received excellent feedback from the partners of the provider and their drive to develop. Leaders invested considerable resources to enable staff engagement and collaboration with people. People told us the staff had the time to interact with them at length.

Leaders supported a focus on continuous learning, innovation and improvement across the organisation and the local system. As documented, they ensured people had equal access to services, outcomes and quality of life.

Leaders encouraged staff to speak up with ideas for improvement and innovation and actively invested time to listen and engage with them. There was a keen sense of trust between leadership and staff.

Staff and leaders had a good understanding of how to make improvement happen. The approach was consistent and included measuring outcomes and impact. People’s outcomes were consistently positive, and we saw evidence the provider had systems and processes to measure outcomes. Staff told us they were encouraged to speak up with ideas for improvement and innovation and were not fearful of doing so.

The provider ensured there were processes in place which ensured leaders had good oversight of safety events such as incidents and accidents. These were reviewed at all levels of the organisation.

The provider completed regular learning exercises including a recent one regarding lessons learned from the recent opening of their new scheme. The leaders showed candour and honesty in acknowledging some mistakes had been made which they recognised would negate similar pitfalls occurring for themselves and others in the future.

Partner organisations told us the provider consistently reported safety events in a timely manner. A partner stated, “When incidents do occur, the service takes a collaborative and transparent approach. Staff are actively involved in reviewing what happened, and the focus is firmly placed on learning and continuous improvement rather than assigning blame.”