• Care Home
  • Care home

Archived: OSJCT Buckland Court

Overall: Requires improvement read more about inspection ratings

South Mill Road, Amesbury, Salisbury, Wiltshire, SP4 7HR (01980) 623506

Provided and run by:
The Orders Of St. John Care Trust

Assessment report published 18 August 2025

Ratings

  • Overall

    Requires improvement

  • Safe

    Requires improvement

  • Effective

    Good

  • Caring

    Good

  • Responsive

    Good

  • Well-led

    Requires improvement

Our view of the service

Date of assessment: 24 June and 2 July 2025. The service is a care home providing support to older people, some of whom are living with dementia. The inspection was carried out in response to concerns we had received about the care of people living in the service. We looked at the quality statements within the safe and well led key questions.

People were not always being supported by staff safely or in a person-centred way. On the first day of our onsite visit, we noted the service was dirty, with stains on furniture and surfaces. Furthermore, some windows were unrestricted and a fire exit door was being left propped open, putting people at risk of leaving the service without the knowledge of staff.

People were not being supported by the provider to integrate into their local community, which left them unable to go out as they wished unless they had family or friends to go out with them. We asked the registered manager why the service was unable to facilitate this for people but they could not clearly explain why this was the case. However, the service had enough staff to support people effectively within the service and we saw people were treated with kindness. We saw some staff supported people with compassion and patience during lunch and ensured they were getting a choice of food.

Leaders were not always using the systems and processes available to them effectively. This meant when issues had been identified through auditing by the registered manager and provider, they had not been properly addressed. Risks were not always mitigated in a timely way.

Staff did not feel supported by their manager and felt they could not suggest ideas for improvements as these were not well received. By the time we conducted our second onsite visit, the manager had left the service, and an interim manager was in post. Staff told us they felt very positive about this change and were now being listened to. The provider was previously in breach of the legal regulation in relation to safe care and treatment. Improvements were not found at this assessment, and the provider remained in breach of this regulation. We have issued an action plan request to address these issues.

People's experience of this service

People and their families were positive about the care and support they received. They felt safe and were confident they would be heard if they raised any concerns with leaders. People felt staff were approachable, one relative said they had seen staff being “very kind” and “empathic to people’s needs”. People said leaders were “very friendly and approachable” who “always let me know if there are concerns.”

However, of the people we spoke to, 2 people told us there was not much to do and they did not get the opportunity to make choices relating to activities outside the home. Another person told us they had not been “let out since they arrived.” We shared this comment with the provider and asked them to address how people can be supported to access their community in the future.

People and their families told us the food was nice, however some people stated there was not enough variety of menus. The cook explained they were short-staffed, which had caused a reduction in food choices for people, but they were hoping to have more kitchen staff soon. Some people also said more consultation with people by the leaders of service would enable them to have more choices.