Aaron Court Care Home

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. At this assessment the rating has changed to requires improvement. This meant the management and leadership was inconsistent. Leaders and the culture they created did not always support the delivery of high-quality, person-centred care.

The service was in breach of legal regulations in relation to the governance at the service. 

This service scored 57 (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 was working towards a clear shared vision, strategy and culture which was based on transparency, equity, equality and human rights, diversity and inclusion, and engagement.

The management team recognised the importance of supporting staff development and embedding the service's values into everyday practice. They described working towards a culture where staff felt more at ease with quality audits and observations of practice. Staff described ongoing improvements, they told us, “Communication is better than it used to be.”

The provider was working to ensure all leaders understood the context in which the provider delivered care, treatment and support. Leaders had the skills, knowledge, experience and credibility to lead effectively, or they did not always do so with integrity, openness and honesty.

The current manager had applied to register with CQC. The service had experienced instability in leadership, however, since our last assessment, a new management team had been established, and greater stability was beginning to emerge. While further work was needed to fully embed systems and processes, the home manager demonstrated a good understanding of the people living at the home and their individual needs. They also demonstrated a commitment to make further improvements for people using the service.

Relatives shared positive feedback and described noticeable improvements within the service. They spoke positively about the home manager, describing them as caring and approachable.

Throughout the assessment, the management team were open and responsive, taking action where areas for improvement were identified.

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

The home manager had an open-door policy and was developing a culture, where staff felt safe to raise any issues or concerns. Staff confirmed this and described the manager as approachable, supportive, and open to feedback. Comments included, “(Manager) is a people’s person and very approachable” and “It’s a lot better since (Manager) came here; she’s lifted morale. There are so many more team meetings, her door’s always open and she’s approachable.”In addition, the provider had a whistle-blowing policy in place and staff were aware of this.

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.

All staff had completed equality and diversity training. Feedback from staff indicated they were treated fairly and the home manager worked towards an inclusive approach.

The provider did not have clear responsibilities, roles, systems of accountability and good governance. They did not consistently act on the best available information relating to risk, performance and outcomes, or ensure this information was effectively shared when appropriate.

The provider had not ensured systems for assessing, monitoring and improving the quality and safety of the service were consistently effective. This is the third consecutive assessment where concerns have been identified regarding the governance of the service. Whilst the provider had completed a range of audits and developed improvement plans, governance processes had not always identified issues or ensured all required actions were completed in a timely way. We found examples where maintenance issues, fire safety actions, accident and incident reporting, safeguarding processes and record keeping had not been effectively monitored or reviewed.

The provider had made some progress since our last assessment, and they had addressed certain breaches of regulation we previously found. However, other improvements were ongoing, and we identified additional issues during this assessment. The provider told us they would implement further measures to strengthen governance arrangements.

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 home manager worked in partnership with partners such as the local authority and health professionals to share information. We received positive feedback from partners about the improvements the service had been making.

Staff were aiming to develop work already in progress to collaborate more closely with the community. For example, some people were supported to attend a regular group at a local community centre.

The provider did not always focus on continuous learning, innovation and improvement across the organisation and local system. They did not always encourage creative ways of delivering equality of experience, outcome and quality of life for people. They did not always actively contribute to safe, effective practice and research.

Although improvements were in progress, at this assessment we found breaches of regulation remained. Systems and processes to improve and monitor the service were not yet fully embedded. Further work was needed to ensure any lessons learned were consistently identified and put into practice.

However, feedback indicated the home manager was open and responsive, and that the provider had implemented improvements to aspects of the service. Senior leaders told us about future considerations for continuous improvements.