Court House Residential 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 good. At this assessment the rating has remained 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.

We did not look at Shared direction and culture during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Well-led.

We did not look at Capable, compassionate and inclusive leaders during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Well-led.

We did not look at Freedom to speak up during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Well-led.

We did not look at Workforce equality, diversity and inclusion during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Well-led.

Staff and leaders understood their responsibilities and accountabilities for good governance. Leaders spoke to us about audits they completed and improvements they had made as a result of audit findings.

The service was recently under a new provider but continued with the same management. A member of staff said, “The quality of care they get is good, [Registered Manager] and [Deputy Manager] like it to be a good level of care”. Managers were accessible to staff. A member of staff said, “The office is open at any time”. External professionals spoke positively about the management at the service and said they were attentive and responsive to the needs of people, applying recommendations made by professionals to improve quality of care.

The registered manager understood their regulatory responsibilities.

Service leaders had clear responsibilities, roles, systems of accountability and good governance.

The registered manager had systems to oversee the quality, safety and performance of the service. They carried out regular audits across the home, and we saw evidence of changes being actioned where audits indicated improvements were needed. For example, an audit of care plans identified care plans needed updating in line with changing individual needs. At the time of inspection, the management team were implementing an upgrade in the amount of information stored in people’s care plans.

There was a process for managing risks to the service. We saw evidence of risk assessments to outline key risks and mitigating actions.

The service had systems to report and record incidents, and lessons were learnt and shared.

Service leaders submitted data and notifications to external organisations as required including timely notifications sent to CQC in line with regulations.

Data, records and data management systems were kept confidential.

Meetings were regularly held to gain people’s feedback and improve the service. People were asked for their views about the service at resident’s meetings. We saw the minutes of quarterly meetings, and some of the topics of conversation were activities, menus, decorations and laundry. Actions were noted and updates given.

We did not look at Partnerships and communities during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Well-led.

We did not look at Learning, improvement and innovation during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Well-led.