Ailwyn Hall

Updated 27 January 2026

Dates of assessment:02 February to 18 March 2026. We undertook 2 unannounced out of hours site visits and 2 unannounced daytime site visits followed by a feedback session. We carried out this assessment in response to a serious safeguarding investigation at the service and to escalating risks which had been reported to us.

At the start of our assessment,there were 35 people using the service.The service is a residential care home providing care and support to older people, some of whom are living with dementia.

At our last assessment,published in June 2025,the provider had been in breach of 4 regulations relating to person-centred care, safe care and treatment, good governance and staffing.Following that assessment,the service was placed in special measures and additional conditions were placed on the provider’s registration requiring them to update CQC each month with quality assurance audits.At this assessment,we identified continued breaches of the same regulations and additional breaches relating to dignity and respect,consent, safeguarding,the recruitment of fit and proper staff and duty of candour.

The service did not provide care which was safe and which met people’s needs and preferences.Management of safeguarding was very poor and actions placed people at continued risk of harm,rather than mitigating risks.Care records were inaccurate,contradictory and incomplete. The provider acknowledged these failings. Staff were not safely recruited or present in sufficient numbers. Induction and oversight of agency staff was very poor and placed people at risk. The environment also placed people at risk and oversight of this was poor.

There had been major changes in the leadership of the service.The provider stated the former management team had not been fulfilling their duties,but the provider’s own lack of suitable oversight had allowed their performance to go unchecked.The provider had admitted people with highly complex needs to the service,but the infrastructure and staff expertise was not in place for this which created high levels of risk.We saw that people had come to harm as a result of the poor oversight from the management team and the provider.

This service remains in special measures. In instances where CQC have decided to take civil or criminal enforcement action against a provider, we will publish this information on our website after any representations and/ or appeals have been concluded.

Updated 27 January 2026

We received extremely mixed feedback from people who used the service and from relatives. Three people told us they were bored, with little to do and 3 relatives echoed this. We observed a lack of meaningful occupation for people on the majority of our onsite visits. Relatives raised some serious concerns about having their feedback and complaints brushed aside. One person said, ‘The relatives are all concerned about injuries as there are not enough staff…not enough there to keep people calm….[The managers] said they will sort and never do anything.’ Another commented, ‘I have visited [my relative] at times. One time they were filthy. I could have cried. [They] smelled…and had food all down[them]….I spoke with [the manager]and [they] just said ‘We do ask [your relative] about personal hygiene.’ But it needs a good approach and there aren’t enough staff for that’.

Some people praised individual staff members and said relationships were very good. They said the service was calmer than before and were positive about the new manager. While some people expressed general satisfaction with the care being delivered, our assessment found care did not meet the expected standards. Care records lacked important information relating to people’s care needs, which meant care was not always delivered in a way which was safe and individual to the person. The high use of agency staff and the number of senior management staff new to the service, meant few staff were familiar with people’s needs and were relying on poor records for information. Senior managers did not know the needs of people well. For example, they were not able to confirm to us if anyone had a learning disability, pressure ulcer or had been diagnosed with Parkinson’s disease.