The Old Rectory

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 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 management team had a clear vision of the future and direction of the service which put people at the centre of any development, changes and improvements. The service had not had a registered manager since February 2026. A peripatetic manager was in post and would be staying in post until the provider recruited the right person to take up the post of registered manager.

Staff spoke to us about the vision and culture of the service. Most staff said that the management team were approachable, listened, and that they felt well supported. Some staff found having different managers overseeing the service confusing, but felt supported at this time. The staff we met knew people well and were loyal and hardworking.

Staff supported people’s (and staff’s) cultural and spiritual needs. People were treated equally, and their individual needs were met in line with their preferences. The management team were knowledgeable and worked alongside staff to support and promote good practice.
Feedback from staff was in the main positive when we spoke with them. The service aimed to give people consistently good care and staff worked together to try and achieve this. Staff meetings were used by the provider to remind staff about their organisations underlying core values and principles and of any changes coming, concerns and compliments.

Leaders had the skills, knowledge, experience and credibility to lead effectively.

We found that the management team was committed to improvement and was open and transparent regarding the improvements in progress and those that were to be implemented. We were told that the focus of the service was to ensure people were safe and supported by skilled staff.
There were systems and processes in place to support staff development and progression within their roles. Staff talked of how they were supported to attend training, gain qualifications and extend their role, for example becoming a medicine giver. Staff supervisions, and competencies were a priority due to changes within the service. Staff told us, “Have worked in total for 5 years but had a break in between. I don’t drive, but can get a local bus and the company has a taxi account of the drivers and will collect us from the home,” and “I feel supported [name] is here to support us at the moment, very supportive to the whole staff team and she has made changes for the better. Senior team have all been supportive. If you are struggling, they will show you an easier way to do stuff.”

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

Staff told us that felt able to raise concerns. One staff member said, “If I had a concern, I would go to a manager, or deputy manager, if I didn’t think it was being taken seriously, I would go to the local authority and CQC,” and “We all get training in safeguarding, we also know how to whistleblow,” and “I would not hesitate to protect our residents, I know how to raise concerns and I’m confident in our management team that they would deal with it.”

The management team understood their responsibilities under the duty of candour. The duty of candour is to be open and honest when untoward events occur. We have received notifications as required. During our assessment we found that the management team were open and transparent. They admitted when things had gone wrong and demonstrated how they had used these to make improvements. Staff were supported and enabled to voice their views and concerns. They were aware of the whistleblowing policy but felt that they could raise them and be listened to. The provider had up-to-date whistleblowing policies and procedures which were in line with current guidance.

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 management team encouraged and supported open communication and there was an open-door policy. The home was proud to be inclusive and supported both staff and people that used the service. The staff team was multicultural, and everyone was respectful of each other.
The provider had procedures in place to promote staff well-being and worked to provide flexible working conditions if required. There were robust measures in place to monitor, maintain and promote good mental well-being across the staff group. There was a formal recruitment process and an equality, diversity and inclusion policy in place to guide equitable and fair recruitment and selection procedures. Staff were encouraged to undertake training in equality and diversity.

The provider had clear responsibilities, roles, systems of accountability and good governance.

Quality assurance systems were in place, and these had been used effectively to identify the improvements needed and consistently drive improvements to the service. The management team had worked hard over the past few months to introduce robust oversight and effective governance at the service. There were still areas to improve, and this was acknowledged by the senior management team and there was an action place in place. The peripatetic manager had identified that care plans and risk assessments needed improving and this was already being undertaken.

Governance meetings were held regularly and minuted. These were used to monitor and pick up trends or concerns early.

Staff told us about their duties and responsibilities; they told us how they managed risk and reported concerns to management. Managers and staff understood their roles, and were clear about quality performance, risks and regulatory requirements. There were checks and audits in place to monitor quality and safety. Action was taken when audits identified areas for improvement. We received action plans and improvement plans which had been updated during the assessment process.

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.

People were consistently supported across a range of different services and agencies. There were established systems in place to liaise with other professionals. One professional said, “Communication is pretty good and they contact us in a timely manner to meet the needs of the people in their care.” The provider told us they were being supported by the local authority, to look at systems and improve the service. In addition, within the organisation there were regular meetings and conferences that staff and leaders attended. These were opportunities to share knowledge and learning and consider future developments.

The provider focused on continuous learning, innovation and improvement across the organisation and local system. The provider had used the recent whistleblower concerns raised, to reflect on practices and improve the service. The concerns have been investigated alongside the local authority safeguarding team, and an action plan had been agreed and was being worked on. We therefore saw examples of lessons learnt following incidents which occurred within the service.

People and their relatives had opportunities to feedback their views about the service and quality of the care they received. People and relatives all described the staff and management of the service as open and approachable. Complaints were taken seriously and learning from them taken forward. Learning was, where appropriate, also shared across the provider’s other services.