North 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.

Maven Healthcare took over the running of North Court from the previous provider in January 2024. Under the previous provider we rated this key question Requires Improvement. At this assessment the rating has remained Requires Improvement. This meant the management and leadership was inconsistent and the culture did not always support the delivery of high-quality, person-centred care.

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 clear vision about what they wanted to achieve, and we found significant improvements since our last inspection, but further work was needed to ensure changes are embedded throughout.

The new providers had inherited a service which was in need of significant investment in culture, systems and the environment. The area manager, quality manager and newly appointed manager were open and honest about the challenges and told us they were committed to improving the service and investing in its future. They had started the process of improving the service, the building was being refurbished, and additional staff had been appointed. However further work was required to ensure the culture of improvement had been embedded throughout the service, we observed inconsistencies in practice such as in how people were supported to eat and further efforts were needed to ensure that changes are embedded, and staff work in a consistent way. The provider and manager responded to our findings in a positive way and took immediate steps to address some of the areas we identified as outlined throughout this report.

The new leadership team were experienced and open in their dealings with professionals and people using the service. However, practice was not always consistent and greater oversight was needed to ensure consistently good outcomes for people as outlined through this report.For example, we identified shortfalls in medicines and contradictions in people’s records, which did not always align with practice. Recruitment records were not well organised, and wardrobes were not always secured to the wall.

The new manager had been in post a relatively short time, but they were motivated to make changes and were working on an improvement plan. Some changes had been introduced, and new systems were being implemented. Staff were positive about the new management and told us that they were approachable and helpful. One member of staff told us, “The home has improved under the new management, Its running better. More organised. Improving the environment. There is less agency being used which is much better.” Another told us, “The change of ownership so much better. The manager we have is very supportive….. There is collaborative working now. Home is starting to look attractive. It is going to be beautiful. We now have good staff working as a team.

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

Staff were aware of the whistle blowing process and confirmed they were actively encouraged to raise concerns with managers and felt confident their voices would be heard. We received positive feedback from people and relatives about the responsiveness of the manager and provider.

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.

Staff described an inclusive culture, where they were treated fairly. A number described team working and how this had been strengthened by the new provider. Staff told us that they would recommend North Court as a good place to work. Regular staff meetings were held, and staff were supported to complete equality and diversity training.

The provider had governance systems in place to identify performance issues and risk, and whilst they had ensured improvements at the service, further efforts were needed to embed and sustain changes.

The provider’s quality assurance arrangements monitored the quality of care and people’s experience through its internal auditing processes. A wide range of audits were undertaken including checking infection control, health and safety and care plans. Unannounced night visits were undertaken and accidents and incidents reviewed. However, these were not always effective in identifying issues such as those picked up during our inspection. For example, risk assessments and care plans missing information, medicines management or inconsistencies in how staff supported people and recorded how people were being supported.

The timeliness of some of the audits and the response varied. For example, the last two night audits had identified issues and actions had been agreed, however a further audit was not completed to follow up on whether the actions had been implemented. Once we raised our concerns the manager immediately undertook a night audit.

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.

Feedback from partner agencies was that this was an improving service, and we saw evidence of work with external stakeholders to support people’s care.

The service was well integrated in the community and people had access to a range of onsite activities such as crafts, and music sessions. The music sessions were popular and well attended. The activity organiser was proactive and welcomed groups such as the local preschool group. The service is located close to the town centre, and we observed people going shopping and being taken for other community based activities. The service has its own minibus and a staff member told us about recent visits to the local regimental museum.

The new provider was prioritising changes at the service and when incidents had taken place or things had not gone as planned, they had taken action. However, there were similar themes in some of the incidents and while some changes had been made, they were not always being consistently implemented. Further efforts are needed to build on and sustain improvements as discussed throughout this report. However, we were assured the new provider and manager would take action to improve the services.