You are here

The provider of this service changed - see old profile

Inspection Summary

Overall summary & rating


Updated 29 March 2019

About the service:

Pool Cottage is a residential care home for up to 17 people which provides accommodation and personal care to older people. At the time of our inspection there were 13 people living there. The home is situated in the village of Melbourne, in the grounds of Melbourne Hall. It is accessible to people who use wheelchairs because there is a stair-lift to the first-floor accommodation.

People’s experience of using this service:

The service met the characteristics of good overall with requires improvement in well-led.

The provider and registered manager did not always have clear responsibilities and defined accountabilities. This meant there were sometimes difficulties managing priorities, responding to concerns and supporting staff. After our inspection, the registered manager and provider provided us with a joint action plan which added clarity to their roles. It gave us an assurance that they had addressed these concerns.

People continued to receive safe care. There were systems in place to safeguard people from abuse and staff showed understanding of their responsibilities. Staff assessed risks to people and monitored these to keep people protected from harm. People received their medicines as prescribed. There were enough staff to support people and the provider recruited and trained staff as required. Good infection prevention and control practices were in place to protect people.

The care given continued to be effective. People enjoyed the meals available and could exercise choice. They were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice. People had access to healthcare services and received coordinated support, to ensure their preferences and needs were met. The provider continued to improve the environment to meet people’s needs.

Staff were kind and caring when interacting with people. We received many positive comments from people and their relatives. Staff made relatives feel welcome. Staff respected every person’s privacy and dignity. Staff supported people to be involved in their care.

The staff and provider continued to be responsive. People had personalised and holistic care plans that staff regularly reviewed. Care plans incorporated information about positive risk-taking and empowering people to be independent. Staff encouraged people to access activities and arranged for external people to facilitate them. Staff identified people’s information and communication needs by assessing them. People knew how to make a complaint and felt confident they would be listened to. Staff had written comprehensive end of life care plans which detailed people’s preferences about their care. The provider showed compassion and kindness when dealing with bereavement.

All staff shared the positive culture and vision to support the people’s health and wellbeing. There were strong links to the community in the service and multiple people told us how the service was a real part of the village. Improvements to the building were ongoing. The registered manager was transparent, open and collaborative with external agencies.

More information is in the full report below.

Rating at last inspection:

Rated as good, report published 5 July 2016.

Why we inspected:

This was a scheduled inspection based on the rating at the last inspection.

Follow up:

We will continue to monitor intelligence we receive about the service until we return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If any concerning information is received we may inspect sooner.

For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at

Inspection areas



Updated 29 March 2019

The service was safe.

Details are in our Safe findings below.



Updated 29 March 2019

The service was effective.

Details are in our Effective findings below.



Updated 29 March 2019

The service was caring.

Details are in our Caring findings below.



Updated 29 March 2019

The service was responsive.

Details are in our Responsive findings below.


Requires improvement

Updated 29 March 2019

The service was not always well-led.

Details are in our Well-Led findings below.