Aurora Home Care Ltd

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. This key question was previously rated good. This question is now rated 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 provider was in breach of the legal regulation relating to good governance.

This service scored 57 (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 have a clear shared vision and culture embedded across the service. While staff and people described the leadership as approachable and open, there was limited evidence of a strong, consistent ethos underpinning care delivery. Records and care planning lacked person-centred detail, and there were gaps in risk assessments. Beyond the planning of care rotas, little had been done to establish champion roles to upskill staff. Leaders acknowledged these shortfalls and expressed commitment to improvement, but governance systems were not yet robust enough to ensure the vision translated into practice. Staff meetings and informal feedback occurred, but structured mechanisms to capture and act on staff and people’s voices were underdeveloped.

The provider needed to clarify the model of care they wanted to provide, as this was not always clear on the website, or in the provider’s Statement of Purpose. They gave assurances they would review and update their Statement of Purpose. This is a legally required documentfor care providers that outlines the service's aims, objectives, and the types of care it offers.

Leaders were visible and described by staff and people as approachable and supportive. The registered manager demonstrated awareness of areas needing improvement and had introduced new supervisor roles to strengthen oversight. Staff spoke positively about leadership responsiveness and the culture of openness. However, while leaders were committed and compassionate, their capacity was stretched by operational pressures, which limited progress on embedding governance and training improvements. Plans were in place to enhance face-to-face training and audit systems, but these were not yet fully implemented.

Staff and others worked within a positive culture where people felt they could speak up and that their voice would be heard. Staff described the leadership team as approachable and said they felt able to raise concerns. There was evidence of issues being acted upon, such as addressing medication errors and removing staff where concerns arose. One staff member said, “I know I can always go to them for help. They are really approachable.” However, formal processes for capturing and analysing feedback were limited. Leaders acknowledged the need for improvement and were planning surveys and forums to strengthen staff voice.

The provider demonstrated commitment to equality and inclusion through recruitment practices and efforts to meet staff and client preferences, such as gender choice for carers. Staff reported feeling respected, and there were plans to improve awareness of learning disability needs. However, gaps remained in training for diabetes and mental health.

Governance arrangements were not effective. There were no formal audit structures in place, and care planning and risk assessments were incomplete or lacked person-centred detail. Medication audits were not robust and had not been completed effectively. Recruitment checks contained some inconsistencies. While a quality and compliance manager had been appointed and was developing an audit platform, this was not operational at the time of inspection. Leaders recognised these issues but had not yet implemented systems to ensure safe and sustainable care. We identified a range of shortfalls in people’s basic care plans and risk assessments that needed prompt attention. The registered manager acknowledged this and took steps to make immediate improvements and to reduce risks.

The registered manager had not always reviewed or implemented best practice to ensure care was in line with it. For instance, CQC’s Right Support, Right Care, Right Culture. This guidance aims to ensure that people who use the service can live as full a life as possible and achieve the best possible outcomes that include control, choice and independence. The registered manager committed to reviewing this guidance more closely.

The provider had some engagement with external professionals, such as district nurses and care managers, but this was inconsistent. They had received a range of feedback from local authority teams but not always acted on these promptly. There was limited evidence of structured collaboration or shared learning. While leaders attended some provider forums and planned to promote community activities like awareness events, these were not embedded as part of a strategic approach to partnership working.

The provider had begun to identify areas for improvement, such as introducing supervisor roles and planning new audit systems. However, learning from incidents was not consistently documented or embedded, and there was no evidence of a lessons-learned process following medication or care planning concerns. Innovation was limited to the ongoing development of the electronic records system, which was not yet fully functional and lacked person-centred content. Leaders were committed to improvement but had not yet demonstrated sustained progress.