Acer 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.

At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has changed to requires improvement.

This meant the management and leadership was inconsistent. Leaders and the culture they created did not always support the delivery of high-quality, person-centred care.

The service was in breach of legal regulation in relation to governance at the service.

This service scored 54 (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 did not always demonstrate a clear and shared vision, strategy and culture that promoted transparency, equality, diversity, inclusion and respect for people's human rights. Whilst leaders had identified areas for improvement, these values were not consistently embedded across the service, and the culture experienced by staff was not always positive or supportive.

We received mixed feedback from people, relatives and staff about the culture within the care home. Staff described an environment where they did not always feel listened to and lacked confidence that concerns raised would be addressed effectively. Several staff told us they did not feel heard by leaders and felt issues they had escalated had not resulted in meaningful action. This reduced opportunities for open communication and limited the provider's ability to develop a culture of continuous improvement.

The provider told us they had put measures in place to try and encourage an improved culture, but there was little evidence on staff uptake with this. Staff did not consistently feel valued or empowered within their roles. Where concerns were not openly shared and addressed, there was an increased risk that opportunities to improve the quality and safety of care may be missed.

Leaders did not always demonstrate the skills, knowledge and oversight required to consistently lead the service effectively. The provider had not fully embedded a culture of openness, honesty and inclusivity, and leaders did not always reflect the values they expected from the workforce. As a result, staff confidence in leadership was variable, and opportunities to develop a positive and supportive culture were sometimes missed.

Most staff told us they did not always feel supported by the management team. Several staff described feeling unable to raise concerns with confidence and did not believe their views would always be listened to or acted upon. Some staff reported concerns they had raised had been dismissed, which reduced their confidence in leadership and limited opportunities for open communication and learning.

People using the service provided mixed feedback about leadership within the home. Whilst people knew who the manager was, they did not all feel the manager was approachable. This indicated leaders were not consistently visible or accessible to everyone using the service.

However, feedback was not universally negative. Some staff described managers as responsive and willing to help when concerns were raised. One staff member told us, “I believe our manager is approachable and responsive, but being part of a larger organisation has some constraints imposed by higher levels of the organisation. I do not believe [they] would ever act in a way that would put a resident at risk.”

The provider did not always foster a culture where people and staff felt able to speak up confidently and be assured their concerns would be listened to and acted upon. Feedback received during and prior to the inspection indicated that opportunities to raise concerns existed; however, confidence in these processes was inconsistent.

Prior to the assessment, CQC received a number of anonymous concerns about the service. The provider was unaware of all these concerns because they had been raised directly with CQC rather than through the home's own reporting processes. This indicated that some individuals did not feel comfortable raising concerns internally and suggested a culture where people were not always confident their voices would be heard by the provider.

Feedback from staff regarding their ability to speak up was mixed. Some staff described feeling unable to raise concerns with confidence and did not feel supported by the management team. In contrast, other staff reported positive experiences and felt able to share concerns and suggestions. One staff member said, “Yes. I feel I can speak to the senior staff or management if I have a concern or suggestion. I feel that staff are given the opportunity to raise issues and share their views.”

We found evidence of division and differing experiences among the workforce, which impacted upon the overall culture within the home. While some staff felt empowered to raise issues, others lacked confidence that concerns would be addressed appropriately. This inconsistency meant the provider could not be assured that all concerns, risks and ideas for improvement were being identified and acted upon effectively.

The provider was aware of these issues and recognised improvements were required. Leaders had begun implementing measures to strengthen staff engagement and encourage feedback, including creating additional opportunities for staff to share their views and contribute to service development. However, these actions had not yet resulted in a consistently open culture where all staff felt safe, valued and confident to speak up.

The provider demonstrated a commitment to promoting equality, diversity and inclusion within its workforce and had taken steps to create an inclusive and fair working environment. Leaders recognised the value of a diverse workforce and sought to ensure staff were treated equitably and with respect, regardless of their background or personal circumstances.

There was a diverse staff team employed across the service, which helped promote a culture of inclusion and understanding. The provider had an Equality, Diversity and Inclusion policy in place, and staff received training in this area as part of their development. This supported staff to understand their responsibilities and contribute to a workplace that respected difference and promoted equality of opportunity.

Staff told us the provider was flexible and responsive to individual circumstances. Several staff described how work patterns had been adapted to support their caring responsibilities and personal commitments. This demonstrated a willingness to consider individual needs and promote a healthy work-life balance where possible.

Feedback from staff indicated they felt treated fairly and that diversity within the workforce was valued. The provider had systems in place to support inclusive working practices and to ensure staff had access to relevant policies and guidance. These arrangements helped create a working environment where people were respected and supported to carry out their roles effectively.

The provider did not have effective governance, management and oversight systems in place to ensure risks were identified, monitored and addressed in a timely manner. Although a range of auditing and quality assurance processes were in operation, these had failed to identify a number of significant concerns found during the inspection. Where issues had been identified, there was limited evidence that effective action had been taken to achieve sustained improvement.

Governance systems did not provide leaders with accurate oversight of the quality and safety of the service. Audits had failed to identify concerns relating to the environment and infection prevention and control practices, despite these being evident during the inspection. As a result, people were exposed to avoidable risks associated with poor environmental standards, unhygienic conditions and ineffective infection control measures.

Records showed that environmental walkarounds and Infection Prevention and Control (IPC) audits had not clearly identified or addressed a number of concerns within the home. This demonstrated a lack of effective monitoring and follow-up action and meant the provider could not be assured that the environment remained safe and suitable for the people living there.

The provider had also failed to take timely action in response to concerns that had previously been identified. An external infection control audit completed in June 2026 highlighted issues relating to pressure care equipment and infection control standards. We found these concerns remained present at the time of our assessment three months later. This demonstrated that governance arrangements were ineffective in driving improvement and ensuring known risks were acted upon and resolved.

The provider understood the importance of working collaboratively with people, relatives, healthcare professionals and external organisations to promote positive outcomes for people. Effective partnership working was evident throughout the service, helping to ensure people received coordinated care that reflected their needs and preferences.

There were established processes to support joint working and information sharing with people, those important to them and relevant professionals. Staff and leaders worked closely with health and social care partners to ensure people's health, wellbeing and care needs were appropriately reviewed and responded to. This collaborative approach helped promote continuity of care and supported positive experiences for people living at the service.

The provider had developed positive working relationships with external healthcare professionals, who spoke favourably about the service. Feedback from professionals indicated communication was effective and concerns were raised appropriately when required. This demonstrated the provider's commitment to working in partnership to support people's health and wellbeing.

There was a weekly GP ward round within the home, providing regular opportunities for people to be reviewed and for any emerging health concerns to be discussed with healthcare professionals. Leaders used these meetings effectively to ensure people received timely access to medical advice and support when needed.

The provider did not always focus on continuous learning, innovation and improvement across the organisation and local system. They did not always encourage creative ways of delivering equality of experience, outcome and quality of life for people. They did not always actively contribute to safe, effective practice and research.

At the time of assessment, we found multiple areas of concern in the service that had either not been identified or addressed.

Where concerns had been identified through audits, appropriate and timely action had not always been taken. This meant improvements were not embedded in practice, placing people at risk of receiving care that did not consistently meet expected standards.

The provider was open and honest about the need to ensure their auditing and quality improvement processes were actioned and fully embedded. Without this taking place, there was limited information on how the service would learn from events and how improvements would take place.