Lanercost House - Carlyle Suite

Updated 1 April 2026

Date of Assessment: 29 April to 8 March 2026. Lanercost House-Carlyle Suite is a care home providing personal care for up to 15 people who may be living with dementia. At the time of the inspection there were 15 people living at the service.

The service operates as a complex behaviour unit located within the grounds of Lanercost House. Other units within Lanercost House were not part of this assessment; however, we visited shared areas such as the laundry and kitchen.

During this unannounced inspection, we assessed the quality statements under all key questions; safe, caring, effective, responsive and well-led.

The service provided safe, effective and person-centred care within a positive and supportive environment. There was a positive atmosphere in the home, and the staff treated people living there and visitors with warmth and kindness. The service demonstrated a strong caring culture. Staff consistently interacted with people in a respectful way. They knew people well and provided support that reflected individual needs and preferences.

Safe recruitment processes were followed, including appropriate pre-employment checks to ensure staff were suitable to work with vulnerable people. Staff completed induction, received regular training, and had ongoing support through supervision. This helped them feel confident and competent in their role.

There was a positive culture of safety. Staff understood how to identify and report incidents and safeguarding concerns, and learning was shared to reduce the risk of recurrence. The provider worked effectively with external partners to support safe transitions and continuity of care. Systems were in place to maintain a safe environment.

Staff worked with healthcare professionals to support people’s health and wellbeing and to achieve positive outcomes. Monitoring systems were in place to review care and respond to changes.

People were supported to maintain their independence, choice and control. Care plans reflected people’s preferences, and systems were in place to involve people and those important to them in decisions and improvements.

Leadership was visible and supportive. Staff spoke positively about the culture and felt able to raise concerns. Governance systems were in place and were effective in many areas, although these had not identified all issues found during the inspection. Leaders recognised this and demonstrated a strong commitment to strengthening oversight.

The provider worked well with partners and maintained links with the local community. They also showed a willingness to improve, including using technology and learning from incidents.

Most areas of care safety were well managed, however some areas required improvement. Risk assessments and care planning were not always consistently recorded or robust, and aspects of medicines management had not always been fully identified through audit processes. Leaders responded promptly and took action during and following the inspection to address these concerns.

Updated 1 April 2026

During the inspection, we spoke with people’s relatives as many people were unable to verbally share their experiences due to their communication needs. We also carried out observations within the service. Throughout the inspection, we observed staff interacting with people in a kind, warm and respectful way. Staff were attentive and responsive, supporting people in a way that upheld their dignity and promoted comfort.
Relatives consistently told us people were safe living at the service. One relative said, “Absolutely… [staff] are very observant,” and another told us, “[Staff] are on to it straight away, in a gentle proactive way.” Relatives described staff as caring and supportive, with a person saying, “I could not have wished for her a better environment to live.”

Feedback we gathered highlighted positive relationships between staff and people. Relatives felt staff knew people well and understood their needs. One relative told us, “They look after [person’s] needs and they have a lovely way of working with [person].” Another said, “The staff really are worth their weight in gold.”
Relatives spoke positively about communication and their ability to raise concerns. Many told us they felt listened to and could approach staff or management when needed. One relative said, “I can speak to anyone,” while others described staff as “pleasant” and easy to communicate with.

People’s health and wellbeing were supported, and relatives told us staff responded promptly to changes. We also heard positive examples from relatives of how staff supported people with eating and drinking and encouraged engagement in activities where possible.
Relatives told us people were treated with dignity and respect. Staff explained care before providing support and took time to ensure people were comfortable. Feedback also indicated that people were supported to maintain their appearance and personal care needs.

There was mixed feedback in some areas. A small number of relatives told us they would like easier access to care plans and more consistent opportunities to attend meetings. Some also commented on staffing pressures at certain times, particularly during nights or staff absence, although most felt people’s needs were still met.
Overall, feedback from relatives was positive. Many described the service as warm, caring and supportive and said they would recommend it. Comments included, “I would definitely recommend it… [person] is safe, well cared for and loved,” and “I would rank it as one of the best… I would definitely recommend it.”