Ornate Healthcare Services

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.

We did not look at Shared direction and culture during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Well-led.

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 level of oversight maintained by the registered manager and the values they demonstrated ensured that high standards of safety, wellbeing, and person‑centred practice were upheld by staff. This was reflected in conversations we had with staff. One staff member told us, “They join in and help out, leading by example. They (registered manager) encourages us and motivates the team.” The staff team felt appreciated.

A professional told us they always found the registered manager to be responsive in relation to any care issues they highlighted. These were discussed with people and their representatives and solutions were found to ensure support remained effective and safe.

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

A whistleblowing policy was accessible to staff and processes were in place to enable them to speak up if needed. Staff told us they felt supported and would speak up should they have any concerns. They also had confidence in the registered manager; any matters raised would be dealt with quickly and thoroughly in their opinion.

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 company’s focus was on improving care quality, transparency, and staff welfare.

We saw staff meetings took place and staff were consulted. At a meeting held in 2025 the Director of the company had attended; discussions around pensions and annual leave were on the agenda. Staff had been approached for ideas and suggestions on how to improve their working life. A carer had suggested car loans being made available for carers who had passed their driving tests. This suggestion had later been introduced, and we spoke with 2 care staff who had taken advantage of this employment benefit.

Managers appreciated staff feedback in meetings and staff told us they received updates and resolutions based on issues they raised. The protected characteristics of staff were also respected, and we saw evidence to support this.

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 registered manager had reported safeguarding matters and any accidents and incidents appropriately to external agencies, including the host authority and the Care Quality Commission. The registered manager had a good working knowledge of the Court of Protection Deprivation of Liberty (CoPDoL)process and had taken steps to ensure staff practice aligned with this.

A CoPDoL is used to authorize restrictions on the freedom of a person who lacks mental capacity to consent to their care arrangements, specifically when they live at home or in a supported living environment. The process ensures that care arrangements, which may feel restrictive, are in the person's best interests and necessary for their safety, adhering to the Mental Capacity Act 2005.

Audits were undertaken to evidence compliance, including competency checks on staff, supervisions and appraisals. We queried with the registered manager why the training matrix did not reflect that all staff had completed aspects of mandatory or refresher training in line with company timescales. We were sent certificates to evidence the elements of training had been completed by 4 members of staff; we were assured this was purely an administrative error as the training matrix had not been fully updated. Rationales for why 2 staff members had not yet completed refresher training due were also provided, for example due to long term sickness.

Professionals told us the provider consistently adhered to agreed timescales for any submissions or requests for information, responding promptly and accurately whenever documentation, updates, or clarification was required. Monthly, mandatory performance returns to commissioners were always returned on time we were told, and other adhoc requests for information were also submitted by the deadline date.

One professional had undertaken recent quality checks and an audit activity; all information was provided on time and in full, with no areas of concern identified. Records were clear, communication was transparent and the overall quality of care being delivered remained high and consistent, they told us.

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.

We contacted several health and social care professionals for feedback after our inspection. All were timely and positive in their responses. Comments included, “Staff at Ornate Healthcare Services engage with me in a highly professional and collaborative manner,”

Multidisciplinary meetings were held for people and attended by the provider; this contact with social care professionals benefitted people; there was liaison for reviews of care packages due to people’s changing needs.

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 company was looking to develop the use of electronic systems to further improve oversight of the service. A move to a combined personnel, recruitment and training software application was being explored; training updates on the matrix would then be automatic.

Regarding an original complaint made in 2024 we saw the provider’s formal response to the ombudsman. Improvements in meeting people’s nutrition and personal care needs were outlined in the response. These improvements had been implemented; staff had attended bespoke training at the community house. Care calls in the community had been simulated as part of this training so that staff knew how to respond appropriately, and staff were observed for competency with company standards.