• Care Home
  • Care home

Nether Place Nursing Home

Overall: Requires improvement read more about inspection ratings

Chestnut Hill, Keswick, Cumbria, CA12 4LS (017687) 73267

Provided and run by:
Hometrust Care Limited

Latest inspection summary

On this page

Our current view of the service

Requires improvement

Updated 21 July 2025

Date of Assessment: 5 August to 29 August 2025. Nether Place Nursing Home is a care home providing personal care and accommodation for up to 26 older people who may have nursing needs, physical disabilities and/or have dementia. At the time of this assessment there were 24 people living there.

We assessed the quality statements from all the key questions; safe, effective, caring, responsive and well-led and we found the service had made some improvements and is no longer in breach of the regulations for safe care and treatment or for staffing. However, we found a new breach of the regulation for good governance and the overall rating for this service has remained requires improvement.

A variety of records associated with care and treatment were not always accurate, current or recorded sufficiently. These included records for the safe management of medicines, accidents and incidents and the monitoring of them, along with assessments of risks relating to people’s care and needs. Staff were aware of their safeguarding responsibilities. There were enough staff with the right qualifications and experience. Staff had received training and some supervision to support them in delivering safe and effective care. During the assessment we identified some minor concerns with the management of some risks in the environment These were addressed immediately by the management team. The home was clean, and processes were in place to manage infection prevention.

Decisions were made in people’s best interests where they did not have capacity to do so themselves. However, these were not always accurately recorded or always completed in line with best practice. Staff involved people and those important to them in their care planning. People were appropriately supported with eating and drinking. The staff team worked well with other organisations and services to support people to manage their health and wellbeing.

People were supported to maintain relationships with family and friends. At the time of this assessment there were limited hours committed to supporting people with group activities. However, there was a member of staff regularly providing social visits and activities of choice to people who were being cared for or chose to stay in their rooms preventing risks of social isolation. People were treated as individuals and with kindness, dignity and compassion and staff knew them well. People were encouraged to maintain their independence. Staff responded to people’s needs in a timely way. People’s personal, cultural, social and religious needs were supported. The management team cared about and promoted the wellbeing of their staff team, valued them and enabled them to deliver person-centred care.

The service worked well with commissioners to ensure that continuity of care for people was managed. People’s individual communication needs were identified, and information was provided in an accessible way. People and their relatives were able to give feedback on care. Staff understood about equality and diversity. The service contacted emergency services when required and knew when to involve specialist services in people’s care. There was a system in place for responding to concerns or complaints. People’s end-of-life wishes were noted and reflected in their care records.

There was an acting manager in post who is registered with us at another of the provider’s homes. They were being supported by the registered manager who is also the director of care for the company. Along with them there is a company compliance manager who supports the home with the oversight of quality and safety. There were a range of quality monitoring and auditing processes in place. However, issues seen during this assessment had not always been identified through those oversight processes and systems. The management team took immediate action to improve those processes to ensure they captured and could rectify those areas of concern. Management demonstrated a positive, compassionate, listening culture that promoted an understanding between them, the staff and people using the service. Staff felt very supported by the management team and were able to report concerns and said they were listened to.

People's experience of the service

Updated 21 July 2025

People told us they felt the service was safe and were involved in planning and reviewing their care and treatment. One person told us they ‘loved’ living in the home and said, “Staff are really helpful. They make me smile every day.” Another person told us, “I feel really safe and well looked after.” A relative told us, “I feel [relative] is safe due to the care of the staff.” Several people described how staff treated them kindly and with dignity and respect. One person said, “The staff are kind and helpful.” Another person told us, “Staff are very respectful.” Most people were happy with the environment and cleanliness. A relative said of the home, “It’s reasonable, could be improved with more regular cleaning.” Another relative said, “My relative’s room is always clean; the home always smells nice.” People were very complimentary about the food. One person said, “The food is very good, portion sizes are plentiful, and we can always ask for more.” Another person said, “I enjoy the food. The chef is very good we get ‘proper’ meals.” A relative said about the food, “The food is excellent. It’s home cooked. The chef bakes a cake every day.” People gave mixed feedback about the activities in the home. One relative said, “I’m not aware of any activities. I don’t think there is much stimulation.” Another relative told us, “They have music afternoons which my relative loves and they offer other activities including arts and crafts.” Relatives we spoke with were not clear about who was managing the home. One relative said, “I don’t know who the manager is. If I had any issues I would talk to the lady at the front desk.” Another said, “I don’t know who is in charge at the moment, I believe they are trying to get a replacement.” Some people could not directly tell us about their experience. We used a structured observation tool (SOFI) to assess whether people received good care. At the time of day we used this tool it showed very minimal staff interaction with people who were sat in the communal lounge. But when we observed staff interact at other times during our visit, we saw them interact with warmth, demonstrating genuine affection, care and concern for them.