- Care home
Valerie Manor
Assessment report published 1 May 2026
Contents
Ratings
Our view of the service
Date of Assessment: 19 March to 9 April 2026.
Valerie Manor is a nursing home. Valerie Manor provides care and support for up to 23 people. At the time of the inspection, there were 16 people using the service. All were in receipt of the regulated activity of personal care.
People living at Valerie Manor were protected from harm and received care that met their assessed needs. Staff were knowledgeable about people’s health conditions and risks, and there were effective systems in place to identify, record and respond to incidents. Staff demonstrated learning from events, and leaders maintained oversight through regular reviews and monitoring. The service had a positive safety culture, although staffing levels were not always sufficient to enable timely care, particularly during busy periods.
People received care that was effective and based on good practice. Assessments were completed prior to admission and reviewed regularly, and people’s care plans reflected their health, wellbeing and communication needs. Staff worked well with a range of health and social care professionals, enabling people to access specialist support and maintain their health. People spoke positively about the food and support with nutrition, and outcomes of people’s health and well-being were monitored by staff.
Most people experienced kind, compassionate and respectful care. Many people and relatives described staff as friendly, caring and approachable, and our observations showed staff interacting warmly with people and preserving their privacy and dignity. However, staffing pressures affected consistency, and some people felt staff were sometimes rushed, which limited the time available for meaningful interaction and compassionate engagement at all times.
People were generally treated as individuals, and care was delivered by staff who knew them well and understood what mattered to them. Opportunities for meaningful occupation and engagement were limited, particularly for people who preferred to remain in their rooms or required encouragement and one‑to‑one support. Although the service had activity planners in place showing a range of group activities and events, people told us these did not always meet their individual interests or preferences. This reduced people’s sense of independence, choice and control.
The service was responsive to people’s needs in many areas, and people and relatives were usually involved in care planning and decision‑making. There were systems to gather feedback, such as surveys and meetings, and many people felt able to raise concerns.
The service was well‑led. Leaders understood their regulatory responsibilities and had systems in place to monitor quality and manage risk. However, frequent changes in management had affected consistency, staff morale and confidence. The current manager was new in post and had begun to stabilise leadership, rebuild engagement with staff and partners, and identify priorities for improvement. Staff recognised the manager’s commitment and motivation, though time and sustained support were needed to embed a consistent, inclusive leadership culture. Leadership acted on feedback regarding activities by seeking to provide engagement to those who did not wish to participate in group activities, while a review of staffing levels was implemented.
People's experience of this service
People living at Valerie Manor generally felt safe and well cared for, and many spoke positively about the staff who supported them. People described staff as friendly, kind and approachable, and several told us they felt comfortable raising concerns or asking for help. One person said, “The staff are wonderful. They’re all lovely,” while another told us, “It’s a happy home and safe.” Relatives also shared positive views and said they felt reassured about the care their loved ones received.
People told us that staff usually treated them with dignity and respect. Observations during the inspection showed staff knocking on bedroom doors, speaking politely and taking steps to protect people’s privacy during personal care. People felt cared for when staff had time to sit and talk with them, and many valued warm relationships with individual staff members who knew them well. One person said, “Some of the carers are really lovely,” while another commented that staff could joke with them and “pull my leg,” which they enjoyed. People and their families received excellent support when they approached the end of their lives.
People also consistently told us that staffing pressures sometimes affected their day‑to‑day experience. Many people described staff as rushed and said this limited the time staff were able to spend talking or offering reassurance. Some people said they waited too long for help, particularly with personal care or using the toilet, which affected their comfort, dignity and sense of control. Although people recognised that this was not the fault of individual staff, these delays sometimes caused frustration. We fed this back to the provider who acted upon this with a review of staffing levels.
Many people spoke about limited opportunities for meaningful activity and social engagement. While the service had a programme of activities, people told us these did not always reflect their individual interests or needs. Several people said they did not enjoy group activities or preferred to stay in their rooms. They told us they would welcome more direct, one‑to‑one engagement, such as someone sitting with them to talk, read a newspaper, or support hobbies like sewing or looking through photos. Without this encouragement, some people felt bored or lonely.
People and relatives were generally involved in discussions about care and felt informed when changes happened. Many said staff communicated openly and explained care when they had time. Some relatives described the service as “running smoothly” and felt listened to when they raised concerns.