Updated 14 August 2026
We carried out this assessment on 26 August 2026.This service was previously rated as good. We carried out this assessment to confirm whether the rating of good remains accurate. This report does not provide detailed information on areas where we found practice continues to meet a good standard. Instead, our findings focus on any areas where the service needs to improve or where we found exceptional practice.
There were systems in place to promote a learning culture. For example, accidents and incidents were viewed to see what could be learned to prevent future such incidents occurring. People were protected from the risk of abuse through appropriate procedures and staff training. Risk assessments were in place for people which included information about how to support people in a safe way. Various checks were carried out to help ensure the premises were safe, for example, on fire safety systems. There were enough staff to support people and robust staff recruitment practices were in place. Medicines were mostly managed in a safe way, although we found 2 unexplained gaps on medicines administration records.
People’s needs were assessed and care plans were in place. People were involved in developing their care plans to ensure they reflected what was important to them. People’s care was monitored, for example, through daily records and care plans were subject to review. This meant they continued to reflect people’s needs as they changed over time. People were able to consent to their care and had the capacity to make decisions for themselves.
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 a procedure called the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS), which is part of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). We checked whether the service was working within the principles of the MCA and how they managed DoLS within the service. We found that nobody was subject to a Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards authorisations and everyone was free to come and go from the service was they chose.
People were treated with kindness and respect. Their independence and choice were promoted. Staff told us how they helped people in a caring way that respected their privacy and enabled them to make choices. A member of staff said, “You chat with them [people], interact with them. If they don’t give you permission [to provide support with personal care] you have to leave them. You give them the choice of what they want to eat.”
People received person-centred care, care plans were based around the needs of individuals. They were involved in planning their own care. They were involved in their care plan reviews and regular resident’s meetings were held. People had access to various community services, these included social and leisure activities and relevant healthcare professionals.
There was a registered manager in place who was supported in the day to day running of the service by a deputy manager. Staff spoke positively about the management and the working atmosphere at the service. A member of staff said, “[Registered manager] is a good manager, they make things clear.” Various quality assurance and monitoring systems were in place. For example, audits, surveys and staff meetings. Staff were supported to develop in their role and had access to regular training and 1 to 1 supervision meetings with their manager.