Heron 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 inspection we rated this question good, this rating remains unchanged. The care was governed by skilled and experienced leaders who were willing to address concerns that could affect the quality of people’s care and have a negative impact on staff. Staff had clear responsibilities, roles, systems of accountability and good governance. The provider worked collaboratively with partner agencies to act on information about risk, performance and outcome.

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.

Leaders had a good understanding of their regulatory responsibilities and current service priorities. Leaders were enthusiastic about the work they did at Heron Court and open to feedback and learning. Leaders had processes in place to oversee the culture within the service and were aware of the importance of monitoring this. Leaders felt supported in their roles. All staff spoke positively about the leadership within Heron Court Care Home. Staff felt able to approach leaders and that their feedback was listened to. One staff said, “Managers will very much as what do you think, and say OK we will try that.”

An audit schedule had been recently introduced to review all aspects of the quality of the service. This outlined which audits were due and when. The audit schedule showed a range of audits were carried out to ensure oversight of risk and improvement within the service. This included reviews to oversee the culture within the service, including out of hours visits.

We did not look at Freedom to speak up during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Well-led.

We did not look at Workforce equality, diversity and inclusion during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Well-led.

Leaders explained there was a clear audit structure in place which ensured key risk areas within the service were regularly reviewed. Compliance managers provided further support in this area. Staff told us they were informed of audit outcomes and ongoing actions to improve the service.

There were systems in place to manage current and future performance and risks to the quality of the service. Overall, the provider took a proportionate approach to managing risk. When a concern was identified during our assessment, the provider took swift actions to improve risk assessments. The provider had systems and processes in place to ensure confidentiality of data and records. Provider had quality assurance systems, such as audits to monitor quality of care. The provider ensured that staff had access to quality frameworks, recognised standards and best practices guidance to promote good outcomes for people. Provider had arrangements in place to submit statutory notifications to external notifications like required.

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

We did not look at Learning, improvement and innovation during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Well-led.