Ambleside

On this page

• Overview
• Person-centred Care
• Care provision, Integration and continuity
• Providing Information
• Listening to and involving people
• Equity in access
• Equity in experiences and outcomes
• Planning for the future

Responsive – this means we looked for evidence that the provider met people’s needs.

At our last assessment we rated this key question requires improvement. At this assessment the rating has changed to good. This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

At our last assessment the service was in breach of legal regulation in relation to person centred care. At this assessment, sufficient improvements were found and the provider was no longer in breach of regulation.

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 made sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they worked in partnership with people, to decide how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs.

Staff knew people which helped them to deliver person centred care. One staff member told us, “Sometimes they (person) will show you what they need.” Staff told us information about changes in people was shared in handover meetings which helped care to be adjusted if needed to continue to meet people’s needs. Activities staff adjusted the activities provided to ensure all people could participate. The activities manager told us, “We look at care plans to see what is suitable for them (people). Staff told us if people were cared for in bed they could provide activities on a 1-1 basis. Care plans detailed people’s preferences and how they preferred their care to be provided. For example, in 1 care plan it stated, “Medication [Name] likes it one at a time on a spoon with water.” People had sleeping care plans that recorded their preferences. For example, 1 care plan stated, “2 pillows and a blanket or sheet rather than a quilt, curtains closed, door half closed. We saw the person had a blanket rather than a quilt. We saw where people had difficulties drinking from a glass, spouted beakers were used to help people consume fluids with minimal support.

The provider understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was joined-up, flexible and supported choice and continuity.

There were people with diverse needs across the home. Some had limited mobility and others had dementia which meant they needed varying levels of support to meet their needs. We saw ‘memory boxes’ were situated on walls outside some people’s bedroom doors to help people identify their rooms. These had items of their personal interest inside them such as photographs, necklaces or personal ornaments.

People benefitted from the use of a hairdressing salon within the home and a Bistro where they could have a hot drink and snack with visitors if they wished. People had access to a large garden with lots of seating areas which we saw people use during our visit. The service accessed people and services within the community to support the range of activities they provided in the home. This included singers and entertainers and children from local schools who spent time doing activities with people at the home. We saw a Summer Fete was planned where members of the public were invited. Activities planned included craft stalls, a bouncy castle and singers.

The provider supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

There were notice boards around the home to inform people and visitors about important and celebratory events being held at the home. There were information leaflets about health conditions should people or visitors wish to read about them. People were provided with a schedule of activities planned for each week so they could choose if they wished to attend. Menus were on display in each communal dining room so people knew what choices were available to them at mealtimes.

One staff member said people had information communicated to them, that matched their needs. This staff member told us about 1 person who was registered blind, but had very limited so staff had to speak clearly and direct to them, so they could hear clearly and lip read. Staff said this worked so they were confident the person understood. Written text was read to that person. Sensory information was recorded in people’s care plans, so staff knew if people needed glasses or hearing aids to aid communication.

The provider made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. Staff involved people in decisions about their care and told them what had changed as a result.

A visitor spoken with told us they were able to speak with staff if they had anything they wished to discuss about their family member. Resident meetings were held where people could attend and information about the home and services provided were discussed, and for attendees to share any feedback. One relative said, “I have attended relatives’ meetings, they let you know the outcomes of the meetings because we have minutes.” The chef ensured people were involved in decisions about meals on the menu. The chef told us, “We had a resident meeting, we asked them, ‘What do you like’? We had a food tasting a week or so ago. A few came along so we try and get their feedback.” Feedback people gave us was they enjoyed their food and the choices offered to them.

The provider made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.

People’s needs were reviewed to ensure they had access to the care and support they required. People’s protected characteristics were understood by staff who supported them to access care from other health and social care professionals. For example, appointments for their physical and mental health. Staff understood how to make prompt and effective referrals to other services to ensure people’s needs were met.

The environment was spacious and accessible, supporting people to move independently around the home. There were sufficient accessible communal areas available, allowing people choice between quieter lounges for solitude or relaxation, or larger communal areas if they enjoyed the opportunity to spend time with others or involved in hobbies and social pastimes.

Staff and leaders did actively listen to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes. This meant people’s care was tailored in response to this.

Staff and leaders demonstrated a strong commitment to providing people with opportunities to have the best outcomes possible. For example, people were encouraged to remain involved in their local community, and staff supported them to go out and take part in activities they enjoyed, where possible. The home was proud to be a ‘Veteran friendly Care Home’. One person living at Ambleside was in the army, so staff helped the person celebrate ‘Armed Forces Day’ in June 2026 by inviting Stratford upon Avon Army cadets for afternoon tea to celebrate with them and others at the home. Another person liked ‘Elvis’ so staff arranged for an Elvis tribute singer to attend the home. People’s individual preferences were explored and accommodated.

People were supported to plan for future care including care at the end of their life.

People had care plans setting out their wishes for future care including at the end of their life. Advanced care plans showed people’s wishes such as whether they would want to be admitted to hospital, what music they liked, and what was important to them such as having family around them. Staff told us they worked with the GP to organise anticipatory medication for those people who were unwell so this would be readily available when the person’s health deteriorated further. There was no one at end of life during our visit, however staff said they would seek external health support if needed and speak with families. People’s care plans we saw showed, those people had recorded some decisions. For example, systems were in place to ensure do not attempt resuscitation (DNACPR) and Recommended Summary Plans for Emergency care and Treatment (ReSPECT) forms were in place.