Royal 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 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 71 (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 worked with people, their representatives and staff to build a culture that focused on enabling people to enjoy their lives.

The service had recently been nominated for an award at a local care providers event, including nominations for leadership and individuals working at the service.

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.

The registered manager was supported by the provider’s management team who were available to them when needed. The registered manager met regularly with other managers from the providers other homes for peer support.

Staff told us they felt supported, and leaders were approachable.

One staff member told us, “I feel everyone is supportive, [the manager’s] they encourage good teamwork.”

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

Staff felt supported to give feedback and were treated equally, free from bullying or harassment. They were positive about the provider and manager and how the service was run.

The service provided information for staff on how to raise concerns if needed.

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.

We observed staff members working well together, staff told us they felt part of a team. The service celebrated different staff cultures and ensured staff felt included. A staff member told us “We work together as a team under the [manager], we all chip in. The manager has worked hard to change the atmosphere here and we feel appreciated.”

The provider did not always have clear responsibilities, roles, systems of accountability or good governance. They did not always act on the best information about risk, performance and outcomes, or share this securely with others when appropriate.

Whilst the service had started developing a governance programme, it had not had time to embed it fully and be effective. Whilst the provider was auditing particular areas of the service, it did not have full oversight of the service as a whole. This meant the provider was not identifying all areas for improvement we found during the assessment. For example, care plans and risk assessments for specific conditions such as diabetes and the administration of covert medications did not always contain enough detail to guide staff to manage people safely. Manager’s knew people well and

were present on the floor supporting people, we did not find anyone had come to harm. The provider listened to our feedback and started to address our concerns during the assessment.

People and their relatives considered the home to be well-led and they confirmed senior managers were visible and approachable. We received positive feedback from staff, people and relatives, recognising how far the home had come over the past year. Managers engaged with people and their relatives to seek their views on the services provided to them.

People and their relatives told us they felt safe and well cared for. One person told us, “‘They [Managers] are so busy but it is managed well, staff are good, it is clean, the food is good.” Another told us, “The manager comes in a lot and asks how Mum is. Any problems I can speak to her.”

The service 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 was in regular contact with health professionals such as community nurses, pharmacist, GP surgery, and mental health team. The registered manager had recently contacted local health services who visit the home to arrange a meeting to discuss better ways they could work together to achieve the best outcomes for people regarding their medical conditions.

Community links had been established and a number of volunteers from the community assisted with the garden and other activities.

During our assessment the registered manager acted on feedback and took steps to review and make changes involving people, relatives and professionals as needed. The registered manager sought to clarify information to ensure they fully understood what was required. The registered manager wanted to continually improve the service for people and ensure they had a good experience. When something went wrong, people received an apology and were told about any actions being taken to prevent the same happening again.

People and their relatives told us they had an opportunity to speak with the manager. People and their relatives told us they felt confident if they had any concerns, they would be looked at.