• Care Home
  • Care home

Flora Innes House

Overall: Outstanding read more about inspection ratings

16 High Street, Byfield, Daventry, Northamptonshire, NN11 6XH (024) 7538 1555

Provided and run by:
Solden Hill House Limited

All Inspections

During an assessment under our new approach

This inspection took placefrom 29 April 2026 to 26 May 2026.

There was a registered manager in post at the time of our inspection. There was a lead inspector, and an Expert by Experience carrying out the inspection.

 Flora Innes House is a care home that provides care to people that have learning disabilities with complex support needs. At the time of the inspection seven people were being supported with regulated activity. 

We spoke to people living at the service, relatives, external stakeholders, staff, and managers. We reviewed care records and visited the service. One of these visits was out of normal office hours. We reviewed audits, and saw policies including business continuity plans, safeguarding, recruitment, and whistleblowing.

We assessed the service against ‘Right support, right care, right culture’ guidance to make judgements about whether the provider guaranteed people with a learning disability and autistic people the respect, equality, dignity, choices, independence  and good access to local communities that most people take for granted.  

 People who lived at Flora Innes House were consistently treated with kindness and compassion. The service provided exceptionally tailored care, and support from a compassionate, trained staff team, who were skilled, knowledgeable, and able to meet people’s holistic needs.

Managers ensured that staff had relevant training, regular supervision and appraisal tailored to the needs of the people they were providing care and support to. They also considered any future needs. If restrictive practices were used, this was only after a full assessment, and often in response to positive risk taking. However, systems were in place with reviews to ensure the least restrictive options were being used and were in line with people’s best interests. Staff fully understood their roles and responsibilities under the Human Rights Act 1998, Equality Act 2010, Mental Health Act1983 and the Mental Capacity Act 2005. Staff protected the privacy and dignity of people they supported.

Staff supported people with recognised models of care and best practice for people with a learning disability or autistic people. People , their relatives, and relevant stakeholders were fully involved and integral in their assessments of their needs with evidence of joint meetings and specific requests acted upon. Staff recognised the importance of family and significant effort was made to ensure contact, and support people with any losses. An example of this was supporting a person to plant and nurture flowers in the garden in memory of the loss of somebody close to them.

Staff fully understood and supported people’s preferred communication methods to ensure they could maximise their involvement in reviews of their personal and health needs. These methods were regularly reviewed, and staff evidenced their understanding of people's needs by adapting these as needed. Care was based on latest evidence and good practice, both as an approach but also daily observations of people. On one day of inspection, Public Health had issued weather warnings ,and the manager was proactive in sharing this. Staff were observed to be following it. Leadership was excellent, and governance processes helped the service to keep people safe, protect there human rights and provide good care and support. The ethos, values, attitudes and behaviours of leaders and care staff were aligned. This helped to ensure people using services led confident, inclusive and empowered lives. The model of care and setting fully maximised people’s choice, control and independence. Care provision was exceptionally person-centred, ensuring people’s dignity, privacy and human rights were fully respected.

Staff worked closely with all agencies involved in people’s care and strived for the best outcomes for people. They monitored people’s health to support healthy living and reduce potential health inequalities. Staff made sure people understood their care and treatment using appropriate communication aids and, if needed, found other innovative ways of communicating to support people’s autonomy.

 The service was easy to access and worked to eliminate discrimination. People received fair and equitable care and treatment. Staff worked to reduce health and care inequalities through training and feedback. External health partners told us communication with the registered manager was excellent, reflecting a culture of trust and partnership.

 Leaders were visible, knowledgeable and supportive. Staff felt supported to give feedback and were treated equally. They understood their roles and responsibilities.

Feedback we received from all partners was positive, with external teams praising the approach of the management and staff team.

19 January 2018

During a routine inspection

This inspection took place on 19 January 2018 and was unannounced.

This was the second comprehensive inspection carried out at Flora Innes House. The last comprehensive inspection was 8 October 2015 where we rated the service as Good. The overall rating for this inspection was also Good, however, there were areas that required improvement in the Well Led domain.

Flora Innes House is a care home for adults with learning disabilities. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as single package under one contractual agreement. Flora Innes House does not provide nursing care. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection.

Flora Innes House accommodates up to nine people in one building. On the day of our visit, there were nine people using the service.

The service had a registered manager. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are 'registered persons'. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

The provider did not always enable the registered manager the autonomy they required to assess, monitor the service or make changes in a timely way. Some areas of the service required more frequent quality monitoring to identify issues. The registered manager implemented more frequent systems during the inspection however we have been unable to assess these systems for effectiveness.

The provider had recognised that the aging and changing needs of people using the service meant that the existing environment, activities and working practices would need to be updated to meet people’s needs. Although this had been discussed at board level actions had not yet been implemented to accommodate everyone’s future needs.

There was a strong sense of belonging shared by staff and people using the service. All staff believed in the ethos of the service of providing care that was inspired by the principles of Austrian philosopher, Rudolf Steiner.

Staff understood their roles and responsibilities to safeguard people from the risk of harm. Risk assessments were in place and were reviewed regularly; people received their care as planned to mitigate their assessed risks.

Staffing levels ensured that people's care and support needs were safely met. Safe recruitment processes were in place. People received care from staff that had received training and support to carry out their roles. People were supported to have enough to eat and drink to maintain their health and well-being.

People were supported to access relevant health and social care professionals. There were systems in place to manage medicines in a safe way.

Staff demonstrated their understanding of the Mental Capacity Act, 2005 (MCA). Staff gained people's consent before providing personal care. People were involved in the planning of their care which was person centred and updated regularly.

People were encouraged to make decisions about how their care was provided and their privacy and dignity were protected and promoted. People had developed positive relationships with staff. Staff had a good understanding of people's needs and preferences.

People were supported to express themselves, their views were acknowledged and acted upon and care and support was delivered in the way that people chose and preferred.

People using the service and their relatives knew how to raise a concern or make a complaint. There was a complaints system in place and people were confident that any complaints would be responded to appropriately.

We made a recommendation that the provider refers to research and guidelines on providing residential and supported living for adults with learning disabilities.

8 October 2015

During a routine inspection

This announced inspection took place on 8 October 2015. The service provides support for up to nine people with learning difficulties. At the time of our inspection there were nine people living at the home.

There was a registered manager in post. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are ‘registered persons’. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

People felt safe in the home and relatives said that they had no concerns about their family member’s safety. Staff understood the need to protect people from harm and abuse and knew what action they should take if they had any concerns.

Staffing levels ensured that people received the support they required at the times they needed it. The recruitment practices were thorough and protected people from being cared for by staff that were unsuitable to work at the service.

Care records contained individual risk assessments to protect people from identified risks and help keep them safe. They provided information to staff about action to be taken to minimise any risks whilst allowing people to be as independent as possible.

Care plans were in place detailing how people wished to be supported and where possible people were involved in making decisions about their support. People participated in a range of planned activities both in the home and at a sister service in the community and received the support they needed to help them to do this.

People were supported to take their medicines as prescribed. Records showed that medicines were obtained, stored, administered and disposed of safely. People were supported to maintain good health as staff had the knowledge and skills to support them and there was prompt and reliable access to healthcare services when needed.

People and their families were actively involved in decision about people’s care and support needs. There were formal systems in place to assess people’s capacity for decision making under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS).

Staff had developed positive relationships with the people who lived at the home and support was provided in a kind and caring way.

The registered manager was visible and accessible and staff, people and their relatives had confidence in the way the service was run.

14 June 2013

During a routine inspection

We spoke with two people who used the service who told us that they liked living at Flora Innes House and that they got to do things that they enjoyed. One person told us 'I like to go to the pub and the staff take me'. Another person told us 'I like the staff and I feel safe'.

We spoke with a relative of a person who used the service. They told us 'We're thrilled to bits with the service and the staff are wonderful.' They told us that their relative was involved in a wide variety of activities and that they were very happy.

We spoke with two staff members who both told us that they received regular training and that they felt well supported in their roles.

We saw that people's preferences, likes and dislikes were recorded and that people had activity plans that reflected their interests. We found that people's dietary and nutritional needs were met and that people were supported to maintain their independence.

We found that where best interest decisions had been made that they had been recorded. We saw that audits were carried out and there were systems in place to ensure that where any concerns were identified that they followed up.

19 October 2012

During a routine inspection

People who used the service told us "it's nice living here" and "it's good, they always take us out". We saw comments recorded from relatives of people who used the service that said 'as parents we are often touched by the understanding of our son's many needs' and 'we feel that all aspects of care are highly satisfactory'.

Staff told us that the best thing about the service was that the people who lived there always came first.

However, we found concerns with the assessments and planning of care and with the assessing and monitoring of the service provision.

1 July 2011

During a routine inspection

We spoke with four people who live in the home. All the people said that staff were friendly and helped them, and that they liked their bedrooms. They spoke eagerly about their forthcoming holidays and they said that they like the activities that they do during the week. No one had any suggestions for improving the service.

Relatives highly praised the service: 'my son has a satisfying life and he is well cared for. His activity plan is flexible. Staffing levels seem to be good. It's a very personal service '. 'A first-class service in every respect. My daughter is very well looked after. She is very attached to the staff and we are lucky she is living there'. 'My daughter has lived at the home for many years. Staff are very, very caring. They are very well trained and my daughter is perfectly safe there. There are lots of activities like riding, walking, pets, and college'.