Updated 12 October 2026
We carried out this inspection on 16 October 2026. This service was previously rated as good. We carried out this inspection to confirm whether the rating of good remains accurate. This report does not provide detailed information on areas where we found practice continued to meet a good standard. Instead, our findings focus on any areas where the service needs to improve or where we found exceptional practice.
People and their relatives spoke positively about the care and support provided and told us they felt safe living at the service. Staff also spoke positively about the service and described it as a homely place to work.
The provider had effective systems in place to help protect people from the risk of abuse. Staff understood their safeguarding responsibilities and knew how to recognise and report concerns. They were confident raising concerns and felt these would be acted upon appropriately by the management team.
Staff understood how to record accidents and incidents and escalate concerns when necessary. Accidents and incidents were reviewed by the management team to identify themes, trends and opportunities for learning. Where improvements were identified, appropriate action was taken and learning was shared with staff.
There were enough staff to meet people's needs safely. Staff received regular supervision, attended team meetings and completed training relevant to their roles. A range of competency assessments were also completed to provide assurance staff had the skills and knowledge required to support people safely. Staff spoke positively about working at the service, felt part of a team and told us the management team was supportive. A staff member said, “People are safe living here because we are a strong consistent team who know people well and know when something is not right, the management is good, they listen and are responsive and we have good training.”
Medicines were managed safely, including medicines prescribed to be given 'when required'. Staff responsible for administering medicines had received appropriate training and their competency was assessed.
People and their relatives were positive about the decoration and condition of the service. Equipment, utilities and the environment were subject to regular checks to promote people's safety. Where these checks identified actions, these were recorded and followed up. External specialists and contractors were used to undertake works and checks where necessary.
People's needs were assessed before they moved into the service and reviewed regularly to ensure their care continued to meet their individual needs. Care plans were person-centred and covered key areas of people's needs and associated risks. People and their relatives were involved in the care planning process. Staff knew people well, understood their individual needs and risks, and knew where to find the information needed to provide safe and effective care. A staff member said, “Care plans have a lot of information and they are regularly updated, I love reading the back story and there is a focus on learning about the person and their history.”
People's nutrition and hydration needs were assessed, and care was provided in accordance with their individual needs. Where required, referrals were made to speech and language therapy (SALT) for specialist assessment and advice, which was reflected in people's care plans and practice. Staff were aware of people's allergies, intolerances and swallowing requirements. We observed food and drink being prepared in line with people's assessed swallowing needs. People and their relatives were kept informed and involved in their care.
People can only be deprived of their liberty to receive care and treatment with appropriate legal authority. In care homes, this can be done through the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS), which form part of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). We checked whether the service was working within the principles of the MCA and how DoLS were managed. Staff and the management team worked within the principles of the MCA. DoLS applications were made appropriately and were overseen by the management team. People had choice, control and freedom over their lives and were not subject to unlawful or excessive restrictions.
People were supported by caring and compassionate staff who promoted their choices and independence. Staff spoke to and about people with warmth, recognised their individuality and respected their dignity. We observed positive interactions between people and staff, and people appeared relaxed and comfortable in their company.
People and their relatives told us people were treated fairly and their rights were respected. Staff understood people's right to be treated equally and described how they empowered people to make individual choices about their daily lives, including what they wanted to eat and wear. Staff understood their responsibilities in relation to equality, diversity and inclusion and knew how to raise concerns about discriminatory practice. Training, guidance, policies and ongoing monitoring supported inclusive practice. People's and relatives' views were sought through surveys and used to inform improvements within the service.
Governance systems were operating effectively and enabled the registered manager and provider to maintain oversight of the quality and safety of the service. The registered manager carried out a range of audits, and there was provider-level oversight. Where areas for improvement were identified, actions were recorded and monitored through a continuous improvement plan.
The service sought feedback and looked for opportunities to improve people's experiences and outcomes. The registered manager demonstrated an understanding of the importance of continuous improvement and described work being undertaken to further develop the service, including redecoration of the home and improvements aimed at enhancing people's quality of life.