Bateleur HC 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 is the first assessment for this service. This key question has been rated Good. This meant service leadership was exceptional and distinctive. Leaders and the culture they created drove and improved high-quality, person-centred care.

This service scored 71 (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.

Feedback from people and relatives was overall positive, with people telling us Bateleur HC Ltd was a good service. One person said, “The care agency is the best I’ve experienced.”

Staff were clear about the provider's expectations of them and demonstrated the provider's values through their day-to-day practice. Staff spoke positively about the importance of delivering person-centred care and promoting people's dignity, independence, choice and wellbeing. One staff member said, “The provider's vision and values are about providing the best quality of care to people at all times and ensuring regulatory standards are met.”

Staff meeting records demonstrated how the registered manager continually communicated the provider's values, expectations and service objectives. Meetings provided opportunities for staff to discuss lessons learnt, share good practice, raise concerns and contribute ideas for service improvement. This helped to promote an open and inclusive culture where staff felt involved and understood their role in delivering high-quality care.

There was evidence of a positive and supportive culture throughout the service. People, relatives and staff consistently described approachable management, effective communication and a shared commitment to providing safe, compassionate and person-centred care. This helped to create a culture in which people were supported to achieve outcomes that were important to them and staff felt valued in their role.

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 registered manager was supported by two effective and competent deputy managers who helped provide strong leadership and oversight of the service. The registered manager demonstrated a positive approach and commitment to continuous learning and development. For example, they kept their knowledge up to date through regulatory updates, sector guidance and ongoing training to ensure they remained informed of current best practice and legislative requirements.

The registered manager was open, transparent and honest throughout the inspection process. They engaged positively with discussions, reflected on feedback provided and were responsive where areas for improvement were identified. They demonstrated a willingness to learn and a commitment to continuously improving the quality and safety of the service.

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

The provider had systems and processes, including policies and procedures such as Freedom to Speak Up, Whistleblowing and Safeguarding to support staff to raise any concerns.

Staff confirmed they had access to the provider’s policies and procedures and felt confident of speaking up when required.

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.

Staff told us they felt valued and supported in their roles. A staff member said, “The registered manager is approachable and encourages staff to speak up if they are experiencing any difficulties, they always consider if adjustments are needed to support the person and or staff.”

Staff confirmed the registered manager was fair and treated them equally and they had not experienced any form of discrimination.

The provider had an equality and diversity policy that reflected the Equality Act 2010. This protected both staff and people using the service against any form of discrimination.

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. However, some improvements were required to governance of the service.

Overall, governance systems provided reasonable oversight of the service and supported the delivery of good-quality care. The areas identified during the inspection were related primarily to recording, documentation and the consistency of oversight, rather than concerns about the care people experienced. People and staff consistently described a service that was caring, responsive and committed to continuous improvement.

The provider had a range of systems and processes in place to assess, review, manage and mitigate risks, as well as monitor the quality and safety of the service. This included audits, spot checks, care record reviews, incident monitoring and feedback from people, relatives and staff.

Some monitoring and oversight processes were more embedded and effective than others. For example, we identified opportunities to strengthen aspects of care planning, review documentation and the application of the Mental Capacity Act. The registered manager recognised these areas and had either already identified them through their own quality assurance processes, with actions underway, or was responsive and receptive to feedback provided during the inspection.

We found the registered manager had a good understanding of the service and the people using it. Where shortfalls were identified, they demonstrated a willingness to reflect, learn and take action to drive improvement. There was evidence that lessons learned from audits, incidents, complaints and feedback were used to promote improvements in practice and service delivery.

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.

The registered manager told us, and records confirmed, how staff worked collaboratively with external health and social care professionals. This collaborative approach supported people’s health, safety and wellbeing.

Information was shared appropriately and staff sought advice and guidance from partner organisations when concerns arose or additional support was needed. This helped to ensure care was coordinated, responsive and focused on achieving the best possible outcomes for people.

An external professional told us of their positive experience of working with the service. This included the actions of staff to support a person who was unable to leave their home and had no other support network. They said, “So I will give a gold star to this agency for being so helpful and being such a strong advocate for their client.”

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.

Staff told us they felt valued, included and listened to. They described a culture where feedback and suggestions were welcomed, and where they were encouraged to contribute ideas to improve the service. One staff member said, “I feel staff are encouraged to raise any concerns and contribute ideas about how the service can continue to improve, and these ideas are listened to and implemented where possible.”

The registered manager told us about their ongoing work with the local authority, with whom the provider held a contract. The service had received two contract monitoring visits during 2025 and 2026. The registered manager demonstrated a positive approach to working collaboratively with the local authority and had taken action to address areas identified as requiring improvement.

The provider's governance systems and quality assurance processes supported learning, development and continuous improvement. Audits, checks and monitoring activities were used to identify areas for improvement and drive service development. Where shortfalls were identified, actions were taken to address them and improve outcomes for people.

Throughout the inspection, we found the registered manager was receptive to feedback and committed to learning and improvement. They demonstrated a willingness to reflect on practice, implement changes and enhance the quality and safety of the service.