Falcon House Care Home

Updated 29 May 2025

Date of Assessment: 8 July 2025. The service is a residential care home providing support to older people, some of whom live with dementia and physical disabilities. At the time of our assessment, there were 31 people being supported with their care needs. The service is registered to support a maximum of 46 people.

Falcon House Care Home was last rated Inadequate (report published 16 May 2025). This assessment has been completed following the Care Quality Commission (CQC) new approach to assessment.

Records showed the previous management team had not reported or investigated incidents thoroughly to ensure people were protected and kept safe. We raised this with the provider and interim management team. They ensured this information was reviewed and shared with the CQC and relevant partner agencies as required.

The provider and management team had a service improvement plan in place, to address the previous lack of oversight and quality monitoring in place at the service. This plan required fully embedding to ensure the service was a safe place for people. We will review the actions taken by the provider at our next assessment.

The staff team were not all equipped with the right skills and qualifications. The management team responded promptly to this, ensuring required training was booked where there were shortfalls.

Improvements had been made to the management of medicines within the service. The management team had worked with the Nottinghamshire Integrated Care Board, Medicines Management Team and their Local Authority commissioners to improve their practice.

The provider had taken measures to improve the poor culture at the service. Since our last assessment, there had been significant changes in the management structure and staffing. This had given people and staff more confidence in raising concerns.

People and their relatives were not fully involved in assessments of their needs. Care plans and risk assessments had not been promptly updated, to take account of changes in peoples’ care and health needs. People’s health was not effectively monitored to support healthy living. Staff did not ensure people understood their care and treatment to support them to give informed consent.

People were supported to eat and drink to stay healthy. However, the records of their daily intake required improvement to ensure holistic care to maintain good health. People were treated with kindness and compassion by staff, although their preferences and wishes were not always fully respected. Staff did not always respond to people in a timely way when people used their call bells.

Leaders were improving the culture within the service, based on listening, learning and trust. Staff felt more confident now, in giving feedback and feeling free from bullying or harassment. The provider supported staff wellbeing and development. The provider and management team showed a willingness to work with external health and social care partners, to ensure care quality at the service was improved. However, these improvements required embedding to provide assurance.

This provider remains in breach of regulations related to safe care and treatment, safeguarding, person centred care, consent and governance, but is no longer in special measures. We will request an action plan from the provider in relation to the breaches of regulation found at this assessment.

Updated 29 May 2025

While people expressed general satisfaction with their care and treatment, our assessment found elements of care did not meet the expected standards. People and their relatives did not always feel fully involved in planning their care. People were not always treated as individuals. People and their relatives felt the service lacked provision of interesting activities to keep people physically and mentally active.

People were supported with their dietary needs by the staff team. One person said, “Our glasses are never empty, and we get drinks with meals as well as the trolley.” People felt able to complain, however, any actions taken were not widely shared with people, relatives and staff.

Some people could not directly tell us about their experience, where this was the case, we observed interactions between people and staff. This approach showed staff consistently showed kindness towards them. People and their relatives told us the staff were kind and caring. One person said, “Oh they’re so kind and I’ve never heard a bad word said.” People knew staff well and had built positive relationships. People described how staff made sure any personal care was provided as they preferred, preserving their privacy and dignity.