Palm Court Nursing 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.

There was evidence to support that the breach of regulation in relation to governance we found at the previous inspection had been met. However, improvements still needed time to become fully incorporated into day to day processes.

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.

Since our last inspection in June 2025, a new manager, and clinical lead had been employed to drive improvements that will improve outcomes for people and for staff. The provider had made significant improvements; documentation was now in place to inform staff about people’s care and nursing needs. However, improvements were still ongoing, and we identified some further areas of improvement that management implemented during the inspection. These will need time to become part of the day to day structure and routine of the home. Management and staff were open to feedback and hoped to continue to improve people's experiences. Staff spoke to us about the vision and culture of the service. Staff said that the new management team were approachable, knowledgeable, keen to listen, work with them, and that they feel well supported. They said that things had improved and felt the home was definitely going in a good direction.

The management team had the skills, knowledge, experience and credibility to lead effectively. They did so with integrity, openness and honesty.

The home had not had a registered manager in place for nearly two years. The manager informed us they had commenced the process of registering with the Care Quality Commission.

Staff were settling into their roles; senior staff were focusing on their specific roles to drive the improvements necessary. Improvements were still on-going, and we identified some further areas of improvement that management implemented during the inspection. There were plans to introduce champions/leads for certain areas, such as oral health, and dementia.

Training and competencies had been updated; supervisions had been introduced and new staff told us they had completed an induction. The systems introduced needed to be fully embedded to ensure a consistent approach is maintained.

Staff felt that the management team were open and transparent but still did not feel totally involved in decisions or that their views and feedback was valued. One member of staff said, “I am not sure if all our suggestions are listened to, but time will tell.” At the last inspection we were told that ordering of equipment had to be through the provider and finance team. The manager informed us that they now had the autonomy to order essential equipment that impacted on safe care delivery when it was required.

Staff told us that they felt enabled by the management team to speak up, but also expressed caution should the management structure change, that the opportunities to be heard would also change back. One staff member said, “I feel that I could voice any concern at the moment, we can do it anonymously if we want to, but I just hope the manager stays,”

The provider and manager understood their responsibilities under the duty of candour. The Duty of Candour is to be open and honest when untoward events occur. We have received notifications as required. During our assessment we found that the management team were open and transparent. They admitted when things had gone wrong and demonstrated how they had used these to make improvements. They told us of the work they had done to improve and of work still in progress.

Since the last inspection, improvements had been made that showed the provider valued diversity in their workforce and was working towards an inclusive and fair culture by improving equality and equity for people who worked for them.

Staff of all denominations had received a bonus which had boosted morale and made staff feel valued.

There had been changes at all levels of staffing, with staff leaving and new staff coming on-board. Mental health and wellbeing of staff were regularly discussed since the change of management to ensure staff felt supported through changes. The home was proud to be inclusive and supported both staff and people that used the service. The manager said the staff team was multicultural and everyone was respectful of each other.

There was a formal recruitment process and equality, diversity and inclusion policy in place to guide equitable and fair recruitment and selection procedures. Staff were encouraged to undertake training in equality and diversity.

Since the last inspection, quality assurance systems had been introduced by the new manager and were being used effectively to improve the service. Some of these were still being enhanced and adapted to further improve governance in the home.

It was acknowledged that improvements were still ongoing and needed time to ensure that the processes now in place will sustain improvements. Areas for improvement identified by inspectors during the assessment process, were immediately acted on and we received confirmation from the manager that these improvements had been implemented.

There were still improvements needed to ensure that people who lived with dementia did have a voice supported by dementia friendly aids.

The provider understood their duty to collaborate and work in partnership so that services worked seamlessly for people. They shared information and learning with partners and collaborated to drive improvement.

Care plans and risk assessments now reflected people’s current needs. We saw people had hospital passports, staff told us these were to assist with admission to hospital. However, these need to be further reviewed to ensure all are up to date. For example, one person’s mobility had changed, and this needed to be updated.

Staff liaised with local GP’s and other healthcare providers when appropriate and feedback from professionals was generally positive.

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.

The manager supported extra training for staff to support continued learning. For example, following some areas of improvement identified in relation to people’s wound care needs and oral health, the manager had also sought to arrange further training from the SALT team and occupational therapy team. The manager said training was helpful, and a number of improvements from the training and the support had been implemented to improve outcomes for people.