• Care Home
  • Care home

Sobell Lodge - Care Home Physical Disabilities

Overall: Requires improvement read more about inspection ratings

High Street, Staplehurst, Kent, TN12 0BJ (01580) 893729

Provided and run by:
Leonard Cheshire Disability

Latest inspection summary

On this page

Our current view of the service

Requires improvement

Updated 2 October 2025

We carried out this assessment between 17 December 2025 and 29 January 2026. Sobell Lodge - Care Home Physical Disabilities is registered to provide accommodation and personal care to people a maximum of 21 people in a care home setting. At the time of our inspection, there were 17 people living in the care home.

We undertook this inspection in response to concerns raised about the quality of care provided, the management of risk, and the overall leadership and oversight of the service

The service provides care and support to people with physical disabilities, autistic people and people with a learning disability. ‘Right support, right care, right culture’ (RSRCRC) is the guidance CQC follows to make assessments and judgements about services supporting people with a learning disability and autistic people and providers must have regard to it. 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 respect, equality, dignity, choices, independence and good access to local communities that most people take for granted.

We found that staffing levels were insufficient to ensure the delivery of safe, effective and person‑centred care. Staff did not consistently receive the support, supervision or guidance necessary to carry out their roles effectively. Incidents, accidents and safeguarding concerns were not always reported in line with required procedures and lessons were not always shared to ensure learning and reduce the risks of incident reoccurring. Risks to people were not always fully assessed, and the measures in place were not robust enough to promote or maintain people’s safety. In addition, the home environment was not consistently clean, as the communal living area was found to be poorly maintained. Health and safety checks were carried out. However, actions were not always completed.

People’s needs were assessed when they started using the service. However, these were not always updated, and care records did not always contain information about people’s background and histories to help staff understand the individual. Staff were not always caring, respectful and understanding in their approach.

The management of the service was not effective. Staff complained about the lack of stable management and leadership of the service which had impacted on their effectiveness. We found records were not up to date, for example, records of people’s care and records relating to the management of the service were not always maintained. Complaints and concerns about the service were also not up to date. Incidents and accidents were not always analysed and followed up. Care records were not up to date and easily accessible to support staff. However, the provider had identified some of the issues we identified and had developed an improvement plan which they shared with us.

Staff upheld the principles of the Mental Capacity Act and supported people in the least restrictive way. They promoted people’s rights, freedoms and choices, and people were able to decide how they wished to spend their time within the home. Individuals were involved in the day‑to‑day running of the service, and staff encouraged them to express their views about how the service operated. People knew how to raise any concerns they had.

Staff supported people to meet their nutritional needs and enabled them to take part in social activities and community events. The environment was well adapted and accessible, promoting independence.

We identified 3 breaches of the legal regulation in relation to safe care and treatment, safe and effective staffing and good governance.

We have asked the provider for an action plan in response to the concerns found at this assessment

People's experience of the service

Updated 2 October 2025

People and their relatives told us that, overall, the service met their needs. Most individuals said they felt safe living at the home; however, some reported feeling unsafe at times due to the level of person‑to‑person incidents and behaviours from others that they felt had not been adequately addressed. A relative said, “It’s a safe place apart from the issues and behaviour of some of the other residents. We want it sorted. We like the grounds.” Concerns were also raised around staffing levels.

Feedback about the staff team was largely positive, with many people and relatives describing staff as kind, friendly and supportive. A person told us, “I really like this home. Everyone is very friendly. The food is good.” However, a relative shared concerns about the number of agency staff at weekends, explaining that their loved one found this difficult as temporary staff did not always understand their needs.

Several relatives said communication required improvement. A relative commented, “The staff don’t ring me to give me updates. I would like more updates by phone or email. I don’t know what’s going on unless I ask or my loved one remembers to tell me.” Another told us, “The staff are friendly and welcoming, but they don’t keep us informed. They are short of staff — my loved one sometimes has to wait to go to the toilet. Sometimes they don’t get a shower, just a quick wash. It’s hit and miss really.”

Other people and relatives reported positive experiences. A relative told us, “I think it’s good. We can have a laugh with all the staff. Staff deal with them well and understand how to support them. My loved one is happy and would let me know if they weren’t. It’s a happy home and the staff are friendly.”

Another relative described improvement over time, saying, “It has improved. It has been through rough times. Last week we had a party, and I observed the staff engaging with everyone. Previously they wouldn’t have chatted with us. The deputy was there and it was very natural. I have faith in them. When I visit it’s not quite what it was but it’s getting better.