Applecroft 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 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 68 (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 shared vision, strategy and culture. This was based on transparency, equity, equality and human rights, diversity and inclusion, engagement, and understanding challenges and the needs of people and their communities.

The service’s vision and core principle was ‘Person’. The service gave examples of how the service had achieved positive outcomes for people in the yearly report we receive from them. This is called a provider information return. One person had had a hip operation and was unable to mobilise in hospital. On their return to the service staff had supported them to regain full independent mobility. It was noted that this had improved their quality of life as well as their mental wellbeing. The interim manager and deputy manager were passionate about the service and enthusiastic to share examples with us about how they made changes to ensure people had good quality care and improved outcomes.

Staff and relatives described the service as having a positive culture and environment. A relative told us, “There is teamwork between managers, nurses, carers and others. I think they are doing a really good job”. Relatives we spoke with who rated the service out of 10 gave it a score of 8, 9 or 10. The relatives who rated the service as an 8 explained that they believed no service could be perfect.

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

At the time of the inspection a new manager had been recruited whom we met on the second day of our visit. During the assessment they started the process to become the registered manager. It is a condition of the service’s registration that the manager is registered with CQC to ensure they are fit to run a social care service and to legally hold responsibility for the day-to-day operations. In the absence of a registered manager the service was being managed by an interim manager. The interim managers’ substantive post was as the provider’s regional director for the south region. Therefore, they were familiar with the service and some of the staff team.

There was a clear management structure and staff understood their roles and responsibilities. The interim manager was supported by the clinical deputy manager and a nurse in charge of each unit. We received positive feedback from a social care professional about the new manager who came into post on the second day of our assessment. The management team were visible and approachable during the assessment. Staff and relatives were positive about the support they received from the management team. A staff member told us, “Yes they are very good managers who work hard and always think of the residents.” Comments from relatives included, “I have recommended the service to other people”, “The service is managed well. I have seen the manager twice and they have been really helpful”; “They have a temporary manager and deputy who sits at reception. Mainly, I know the unit manager and nurses on the unit. I have a high opinion of them all. They come around to you and are all available. I would say the home runs well. They know all the patients and the communication is good.”

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

Staff told us there was good communication in the service. They felt confident to raise concerns and knew with whom to talk to if they had any complaints. This included reporting to senior staff or a member of the management team.

Staff confirmed they were invited to regular meetings to discuss their development and team meetings where they were able to share their views. As a result of staff surveys in 2025 a ‘You said we did’ had been shared and was displayed at the service. This included moving one of the units so people who were more mobile had access to the garden. Also, discussing how staffing levels had been decided based on people’s dependency levels so staff had a better understanding of the process.

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 workforce was diverse, and support was in place for staff. Reasonable adjustments and adaptions were made when needed. Training records demonstrated that promoting understanding of equality and equity for people was part of their mandatory training practices. Staff spoke positively about their experiences at work and told us they were treated fairly. One staff member told us, “I feel I’m being treated fairly and I get regular feedback.”

The provider was working towards ensuring there were clear responsibilities, roles, systems of accountability and good governance. They had not always acted on the best information about risk, performance and outcomes.

The provider had a programme of internal audits to help identify any shortfalls in the service and to monitor the quality of service provision. This included health and safety, medicines, care plans and staff training. There were also external checks including a mock CQC inspection in June 2025. Where service improvements had been identified these had been added to the service improvement plan. The management and provider oversight of the service had recently changed, and systems and processes had been further reviewed. The service was working through this action plan at the time of the assessment and it could be seen that a number of actions had been completed. For example, there had been a lack of oversight of accidents and incidents, but this was being undertaken at the time of the assessment. Each necessary action was risk rated so the most important tasks were completed in a timely manner.

These auditing processes had failed to identify the shortfalls we found in medicines management and aspects of moving and handling guidance. The management team took action to remedy these shortfalls and involve staff in reflective practices once they had been brought to their attention. Furthermore, the service was a long-established specialist service for people living with dementia. However, the provider had only recently recognised and started to plan and receive written quotes to make changes in the environment to make it more suitable and stimulating for people with dementia.

Services providing health and social care to people are required to inform the CQC of important events that happen in the service. This is so we can check that appropriate action has been taken. The provider had appropriately informed us of events and incidents.

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 management team and staff worked hard to build and maintain relationships with health professionals, working in collaboration with other services to ensure good, joined up care for people. The service had partnerships with a wide range of professionals from the local authority and health teams. This included diabetic nurses, frailty team, doctors and opticians. They had partnered with a specialist company to receive equipment, training and advise on pressure relief.

The provider was working towards continuous learning and improvement across the organisation and local system. They encouraged the delivery of equality of experience and quality of life for people.

There was a positive culture where staff and managers understood the importance of learning lessons and making improvements. The management team were open and honest that their quality assurance systems had not identified some areas for improvement and that changes in medicines management had not been embedded in as timely manner as they would have liked. When things had not gone as planned, nurses were encouraged to reflect to identify what had gone wrong and why and what steps they could take to help prevent the issue from happening again.

The provider valued the feedback we gave them as part of our assessment process. They used this feedback to make improvements to the service and to put systems in place to embed the changes. The views of people and their relatives were sought. There was oversight of any complaints, incidents or compliments to identify what was going well with the service and where there was room for improvement.