• Care Home
  • Care home

Te Hira Care Home Limited

Overall: Requires improvement read more about inspection ratings

23 Moultrie Road, Rugby, Warwickshire, CV21 3BD (01788) 561521

Provided and run by:
Te Hira Care Home Limited

Assessment report published 11 September 2026

On this page

Caring

Good

11 September 2026

Caring – this means we looked for evidence that the provider involved people and treated them with compassion, kindness, dignity and respect.

At our last inspection we rated this key question Good. At this inspection the rating has remained Good. This meant people were supported and treated with dignity and respect; and involved as partners in their care.

This service scored 70 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

Kindness, compassion and dignity

Score: 3

The provider always treated people with kindness, empathy and compassion and respected their privacy and dignity. Staff treated colleagues from other organisations with kindness and respect.

People were positive about the staff and management team, and we saw staff acknowledged people when they walked by them. One person told us the staff were, “Very good actually.” Relatives told us, “We are pleased with care here, the staff are lovely.”

Staff described how they ensured people’s privacy and dignity was maintained and gave examples of how they responded to a person with dementia who could remove their clothes in public areas. One staff member told us, “We are very good and work as a team. We quickly step in and cover them up saying ‘gosh it’s chilly today you’ll catch a cold’. It works.” Another staff member said, “Every day we want to do our best to make the residents happy. To make them feel settled and content in their home.”

Treating people as individuals

Score: 3

The provider treated people as individuals and made sure people’s care, support and treatment met people’s needs and preferences. They took account of people’s strengths, abilities, aspirations, culture and unique backgrounds and protected characteristics.

People felt their individual needs were being met and staff understood their preferences and wishes. One person told us how staff helped them when their health deteriorated. They said, “I haven’t been well, I have to have help to get washed and dressed.” Another person told us how they had been up early and staff had given them breakfast before they chose to return to bed. This demonstrated flexibility within the service to meet the person’s wishes and needs.

Staff knew people well which helped them to support people with person centred care. One staff member told us, “Every resident has different things that are important to them, it could be church or the type of food they eat. We learn from talking to them and talking with their family. We respect different views.” Another staff member said, “What I love about my job is the residents. Working here has really brought out the compassion in me that I didn’t know I had. I just love it.”

Staff understood not all people could fully participate in the activities provided so adapted them to accommodate people’s individual abilities. One staff member told us, “I try and involve everyone. I use large size cards so they can see the cards (for card games). Also, as some have dementia, instead of giving them lots of information, I give them a couple of cards and tell them what we are playing and try to include them.”

 

Independence, choice and control

Score: 3

The provider promoted people’s independence, so people knew their rights and had some choice and control over their own care, treatment and wellbeing.

People told us staff encouraged them to be independent. One person told us, “If I want anything, I come down in the lift and ask them.”

People told us they chose what they wanted to wear, and where they wanted to eat. However, whilst we saw there were 2 meal options available, 2 people told us there was no choice of meals suggesting they were not always aware of them. Two people told us they would like the option to have a cooked breakfast as this was not currently available. Management staff told us they would review this.

People were supported to do a range of activities to support their physical, mental and social needs. These included bingo, card games and activities in the garden. Staff told us how one person, “Loved to be outside and active” and how they encouraged them to ‘work’ alongside them in the garden.

 

Responding to people’s immediate needs

Score: 3

The provider listened to and understood people’s needs, views and wishes. Staff responded to people’s needs in the moment and acted to minimise any discomfort, concern or distress.

Staff were responsive to people’s needs. We saw 1 person standing in the hallway looking lost. A staff member quickly noticed this and approached the person. The staff member gently put their hand on the person’s arm and asked, ”Can I help you?” The person smiled and said, “I can’t remember where the toilet is.” The staff member replied, “Don’t you worry about that, I forget my name some days. How about I walk with you and we’ll find it together.” The person laughed, took the staff member’s hand and they walked off down the corridor together.

Another person was anxious and calling out. Staff went immediately to the person to speak with them which reassured them and helped to calm them. We saw the staff member who provided activities went to the person’s room later in the day to spend some time with them.

Call bells were available in communal areas as well as people’s rooms to enable people to alert staff they needed support.

Workforce wellbeing and enablement

Score: 2

The provider aimed to promote the wellbeing of their staff and supported and enabled staff to always deliver person-centred care.

People were supported by staff who worked well together. People and their relatives spoke positively of the staff.

The provider had processes to support staff wellbeing, and the operations manager was described as ‘accessible’ if staff needed advice and support. However, there were mixed views from staff as to whether there were enough of them to support their wellbeing. Some staff described feeling rushed at times due to having to complete both cooking and cleaning at the home as well as provide care. This meant staff may not always have been supported to deliver consistent, high-quality care. Other staff were positive in their comments about the service. One said, “I love it (working at the home), staff are really supportive.”

The provider was able to explain how they supported staff in times of need by making workplace adjustments to enable them to continue their role working at the home. They told us following our visit that staffing had been increased at night to ensure risks associated with fire safety could be managed effectively.