Grange Court 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 79 (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.
Staff demonstrated a clear understanding of the service’s vision and values and were able to explain how delivering person centred, person led care was central to their role. They described a shared commitment to providing high quality care that promoted a positive and welcoming environment, which contributed to the service feeling more like a hotel than a traditional care home.
We observed staff consistently embodied and promoted these values in their day to day practice. Interactions with people reflected a culture that prioritised dignity, respect and individual choice.
Records, including meeting minutes and provider led quality audits, further demonstrated a clear and cohesive direction across the service. These were focused on improving the quality of care and enhancing people’s experiences, showing the provider’s vision and values were understood, shared and actively implemented at all levels of the organisation.
 

The provider had leaders who understood the context in which they delivered care, treatment and support and embodied the culture and values of the organisation. Leaders had the skills, knowledge, experience and credibility to lead effectively and did so with integrity, openness and honesty; however, this approach was not always consistently experienced across all levels of the service.
Leaders, including the Registered Manager and Nominated Individual, demonstrated a strong commitment to supporting staff and were highly visible within the service. Staff told us these leaders were kind, approachable and knowledgeable, which enabled them to lead the service effectively. Staff spoke positively about their visibility and described how they led by example, providing clear guidance and support in day to day practice.
However, feedback from some staff indicated that experiences of leadership were not always consistent across the service. Some staff described occasions where communication and recognition could be improved. While this was based on staff feedback rather than observed practice during the assessment, it suggested that inclusive and compassionate leadership was not fully embedded at all levels.
Records showed the Registered Manager acted with integrity and upheld their duty of candour when required. This demonstrated a commitment to openness, honesty and professional accountability.
 

The provider fostered a positive culture where people felt they could speak up and their voice would be heard.
Staff demonstrated a good understanding of how to raise safeguarding concerns and report issues relating to the quality-of-care people received. Staff told us they felt confident to do so and were assured appropriate action would be taken if concerns were raised. This supported a culture where people’s safety and the quality of care were prioritised.
Staff were also encouraged to contribute to staff meetings and told us they were able to share ideas to support improvements in care and suggest new initiatives. This promoted collective learning and continuous improvement within the service.
However, some staff told us they did not always feel confident to raise concerns of a more personal nature. They described occasions where issues not directly related to the quality of care had not been fully acknowledged, which had impacted on their confidence to raise similar concerns in the future. This feedback related specifically to individual staff experiences and did not involve concerns about people’s safety or the quality of care provided.
Overall, there was an open culture in relation to raising concerns about care and safety, although there remained some scope to strengthen how all staff are supported to speak up about wider workplace concerns.
 

The provider did not always ensure staff experienced equality and fair treatment, with some staff reporting inconsistent support, recognition and decision-making.
Recruitment processes were equitable and fair, and the service employed a diverse workforce. This supported equality of opportunity when people joined the organisation.
However, we received some mixed feedback in relation to workforce equality. Several staff shared experiences which suggested not all staff felt they were treated equally within the service. Some staff described feeling less supported and valued at times, including feeling overlooked, not always recognised for their work, and not consistently included in day-to-day communication with management.
A small number of staff shared examples where they felt decisions relating to leave or flexible working arrangements had not always been applied consistently. These experiences contributed to a perception among some staff of unfair or unequal treatment.
Overall, while systems were in place to support equality, there was variability in how these were experienced by staff. This is an area for the provider to reflect on to ensure all staff feel valued, supported and treated fairly.
 

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.
Leaders and staff demonstrated a good understanding of their roles and responsibilities, which supported effective oversight of care delivery across the service. A range of detailed audits and quality assurance systems were in place, and these demonstrated good levels of compliance across key areas of practice. Meeting minutes and provider-led audits reflected a clear focus on the quality of care and people’s experiences, supporting continuous improvement.
Governance arrangements supported strong clinical oversight. This included effective monitoring of risks such as nutrition, the use of recognised clinical tools to guide care, and positive partnership working with external professionals. Where areas for development were identified, such as nutritional support, these were appropriately addressed through specialist involvement, staff training and ongoing review of outcomes.
Most care plans were reviewed in line with expected timescales. However, we identified 2 people’s care plans that had not been updated as required and had been flagged as overdue on the electronic system. This indicated some variability in practice and highlighted an opportunity to strengthen oversight, to ensure all care plans were consistently reviewed and governance systems were always used to their full effectiveness. However, we found no evidence that this had a negative impact on people’s care or the quality of support they received at the time of the assessment.
Overall, governance systems were well established and supported the delivery of safe, effective and person-centred care, with minor opportunities identified to further improve consistency and assurance.
 

The provider clearly understood and carried out their duty to collaborate and worked in partnership, and services worked seamlessly for people. They always shared information and learning with partners and collaborated for improvement.
Care records demonstrated the provider had strong, well established links with a wide range of external professionals, showing that partnership working was embedded in day to day practice. The volume and quality of professional visit records reflected effective coordination with other services to meet people’s changing needs. The service worked closely with professionals including a nurse practitioner, the STEW nutrition service and GPs, and there was clear evidence that these collaborative relationships had contributed to improved outcomes for people, including their health, wellbeing and quality of life.
The provider also maintained strong and meaningful links within the local community. This included sponsoring a local wellbeing and dementia café to ensure it remained accessible to people using the service and others in the community. The service had developed positive relationships with a local nursery, with children regularly visiting and engaging with people. People were also supported to participate in wider community events, such as those linked to the Bradford City of Culture programme, including events at Bradford Live.
These partnerships supported people to remain connected to their community, promoting inclusion, social interaction and meaningful engagement. This helped people maintain a sense of belonging and continue to access opportunities that reflected their interests and preferences beyond the service environment.
 

The provider had a strong focus on continuous learning, innovation and improvement across the organisation and local system. They always 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 provider demonstrated a strong commitment to learning and continuous improvement. They actively engaged with external networks, including membership of the Bradford Care Association, making effective use of shared resources and opportunities to support service development and enhance practice.
The service also worked collaboratively with partner organisations to support learning and innovation. For example, involvement in the STEW project had been used effectively to strengthen nutritional care, increase staff knowledge and improve outcomes for people. This showed that learning was actively translated into practice.
Leaders demonstrated a proactive approach to learning from both internal and external review. Following a recent mock inspection, they developed a detailed audit action plan to ensure findings were clearly identified, monitored and completed. In addition, the provider had responded positively to the findings from this assessment, taking prompt action and making early improvements in identified areas. This demonstrated a strong commitment to reflection and a willingness to drive continuous improvement in real time.
There was also clear evidence of shared learning across the wider provider group, supporting consistency and improvement in practice across services. The provider’s long standing accreditation with the Gold Standards Framework further demonstrated a sustained commitment to reflection, learning and delivering high-quality care, particularly in relation to future planning and end of life care.
Overall, the provider had embedded a culture of continuous learning and improvement, using both internal and external opportunities to enhance practice and improve outcomes for people.