- Care home
Silver Howe
Assessment report published 1 May 2026
Contents
Ratings
Our view of the service
Date of Assessment: 26 February to 12 March 2026. Silver Howe is a care home providing personal care and accommodation for up to 30 older people and who may have dementia. At the time of this assessment there were 26 people living there.
We assessed the quality statements from all the key questions; safe, effective, caring, responsive and well-led. We found breaches of the regulations safe care and treatment and good governance. The overall rating for this service has changed to requires improvement.
A variety of records associated with care and treatment were not always accurate, current or recorded sufficiently. These included records for accidents and incidents and the monitoring of them, along with assessments of risks relating to people’s care and needs. We also found medicines were not always managed safely. We not fully assured there were always sufficient staff. Staff were aware of their safeguarding responsibilities. Staff had received training and supervision to support them in delivering safe and effective care. However, not all staff had completed any specialised dementia training. 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, but these were not always recorded or always completed in line with best practice. Staff involved people and those important to them in their care planning. People were supported with eating and drinking. However, records for monitoring fluid intake were not always effectively completed. 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. People told us there was not a lot of regular activities or things to do. There were 10 hours per week committed to supporting people by an activity’s coordinator with individual and group activities. We observed a member of the staff team who at different points during the day completing some activities with people who were sat in the main lounge. We did not see how people who were being cared for or chose to stay in their rooms and at risk of social isolation were supported with activities.
People were encouraged to maintain their independence. People were treated as individuals and with kindness, dignity and compassion and staff knew them well. People’s personal, cultural, and religious needs were supported. The registered manager cared about and promoted the wellbeing of their staff team, valued them and supported them to deliver person-centred care.
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 the service. 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 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 registered manager and staff took immediate action to address some areas of concern that required it. The registered manager 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 registered manager and were able to report concerns and said they were listened to. There was a company compliance manager who visited the home regularly to monitor and oversee the quality and safety on behalf of the provider.
We have asked the provider for an action plan in response to the concerns found at this assessment.
People's experience of this service
Most people told us they felt the service was safe. One person told us, “I do feel safe here.” A relative told us, “It’s an excellent place. I have been in a lot of homes, and this is the best by far. My relative is very safe here.” Another relative told us they thought the care ‘could be better’.
Some people told us they had to wait for assistance after ringing their call bells. One person told us, “Sometimes you have to wait but at night they [staff] come straight away.” Another person said, “When I push my buzzer they do come but you might have to wait a bit.” A relative said, “I can stand for ages at the front door waiting to get in and if I need a carer I have to go and find one. Staffing is usually sparser than it is today.”
People we spoke with were happy with the environment and cleaning. People were complimentary about the food. One person said, “The food is so-so, but you do get a choice.” Another person said, “The food is very good and there is always a choice.” We were also told, “The food is very nice.”
People described how staff treated them kindly and with dignity and respect. One person said, “You feel part of the family here, so kind and caring.” Another person told us, “Staff are very nice to you. I please myself when I get up or go to bed.” A relative said, “The staff are very friendly, excellent in fact, very attentive.”
One person told us, “It’s boring really, being in my room all the time, no one comes up with any entertainment. I have the newspaper, some games and my books.” Another person said, “We do crafts sometimes.” We were also told, “Sometimes I only see staff when they bring my food and go, they don’t stop to chat.” Another person told us, “This place is not what it was. The staff have all changed.”
Some people could not directly tell us about their experience. We used a structured observation tool (SOFI) to assess whether people received good care. We observed staff interact at different times of the day during our visit. The first day we observed the lunch time experience to be unstructured for people and staff interactions were seen to be task driven. However, on the other days we saw staff interact with warmth, demonstrating genuine affection, care and concern for people.