Aria Court

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 requires improvement. At this assessment the rating has changed to 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.

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 had a clear vision and values that staff understood and reflected in their approach to care. Staff demonstrated expectations around providing kind, respectful and person‑centred care in practice.

The culture was open and supportive. Staff described feeling able to raise concerns, with visible and approachable leadership, encouraging open communication. Engagement initiatives supported team cohesion and morale, and staff feedback indicated they felt supported in their roles.

Observation showed staff worked collaboratively across teams with a shared focus on people’s wellbeing. Feedback from staff and relatives indicated growing confidence in the service, particularly in relation to communication and consistency of care delivery.

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.

Leadership within the service was visible, accessible and actively engaged with staff across all levels of the organisation. Staff described senior leaders, including the registered manager, clinical leads and regional oversight teams, as approachable and supportive.

Senior leaders were regularly present within the service and were reported to engage informally with staff, including shared breakfast sessions, which contributed to visibility and open communication between staff and leadership. Staff feedback indicated that leaders were known to them and were seen as accessible when support or guidance was needed.

The registered manager and deputy manager were both registered nurses, supported by clinical leads with appropriate professional oversight. Both the registered manager and deputy were also undertaking further professional development in leadership and management qualifications, supporting ongoing development of leadership capability within the service.

Leaders demonstrated an understanding of the service and were responsive to identified risks. Systems were in place to escalate concerns and implement changes where required, supported by regular review of clinical and operational performance data.

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

The service had systems in place to support a culture where staff felt able to raise concerns without fear of detriment. Staff described feeling able to speak openly to senior leaders and reported that concerns were listened to and taken seriously.

There were structured opportunities for staff to raise concerns as part of an open-door policy, including a regular weekly drop-in session where staff could speak directly with management. Staff also reported that leaders were accessible outside of these sessions when more immediate support was needed.

The service promoted awareness of speaking up processes through visible prompts and tools to support staff understanding. This included “speak up” posters displayed within the service and the use of a staff keyring resource containing key guidance on safeguarding, Mental Capacity Act (MCA), Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS), complaints procedures and organisational values, alongside the 6 Cs principles.

Staff reported that concerns were addressed appropriately and described confidence that issues raised would be acted upon. Leaders were also observed reinforcing the importance of speaking up within day-to-day practice, supporting an open and transparent culture.

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 a generally fair and respectful working environment where they felt valued and supported in their roles.

Staff reported that they were treated fairly and that there was an inclusive culture within the service.

The service promoted inclusion through awareness activities and cultural events, including recognition of international cultural events such as International Dance Day, supporting engagement and respect for diversity within the workforce.

Equality, diversity and inclusion (EDI) training was available to staff and was up to date. This supported staff awareness of inclusive practice and reinforced expectations around respectful and fair treatment across the workforce.

There were appropriate facilities in place to support staff wellbeing and inclusion during breaks. The service also provided quiet spaces to support staff who wished to practice prayer or observe their faith, supporting cultural and religious needs within the workforce.

The provider had clear responsibilities, roles, systems of accountability and good governance. They used these to manage and deliver good quality, sustainable care, treatment and support. They acted on the best information about risk, performance and outcomes, and shared this securely with others when appropriate.

The service had established governance systems to oversee quality, safety and performance. This included audits, clinical governance meetings and service improvement planning to monitor key risks and drive improvement.

Audits were effective in identifying issues and were supported by action plans that were tracked to completion. For example, analysis of call bell response times led to targeted actions and evidenced improvement within a month.

Governance structures supported escalation and review of risks, and issues identified through audits were reflected in service improvement plans, including refurbishment of a dementia care environment. Oversight of learning through audits and lessons learned processes indicated changes were being embedded into day‑to‑day practice.

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 service worked in partnership with a range of external organisations and community groups to support people’s wellbeing, engagement and access to meaningful activity.

There was evidence of structured collaboration with healthcare-related and therapeutic organisations, including Alzheimer’s Society and Brain Plus. Cognitive stimulation therapy (CST) was used as part of a structured programme, delivered over several weeks in collaboration with external facilitators.

The service also participated in community-based initiatives designed to reduce social isolation and promote inclusion. This included an “adopted grandparents” style collaboration, supporting intergenerational connections and enabling people to engage with others who shared similar cultural or language backgrounds.

Community engagement was actively supported through a designated lead role, who coordinated links with local schools, retail organisations, churches and other community partners.

There was also involvement in themed community and interest-based groups, including veterans’ activities, which supported shared identity and participation in structured events and activities.

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 service demonstrated ongoing learning and improvement activity supported by audit findings, incident reviews and service development planning. There was evidence that governance processes were used to identify areas for improvement and inform changes in practice.

A review of mealtime provision identified that staffing levels during peak periods required strengthening. In response, the service introduced a “whole home approach” during mealtimes, where staff from across different roles supported dining provision. This change was reported to have improved the dining experience for people and ensured more consistent support during busy periods.

The provider also identified limitations within the existing care planning system in relation to person-centred documentation. As a result, the service was transitioning to a new digital care planning platform, which had been trialled and was due to go live in the coming months. This was intended to improve the flexibility and personalisation of care records and support more accurate reflection of individual needs.