Highwood Mill Extra Care Scheme

Updated 24 November 2025

Date of assessment: 27 November to 5 December 2024.

Highwood Mill is an extra care housing scheme providing personal care to older people and adults with a range of needs, including dementia, physical disabilities, and sensory impairments. Although the service was not supporting any autistic people or people with a learning disability at the time of inspection, we still assessed the service against the principles of Right Support, Right Care, Right Culture. This is because the provider is registered to support people with these needs, and must be able to demonstrate that its culture, model of care and governance would enable safe, person‑centred, rights‑based support should someone with these needs move into the service.

Extra care housing is purpose-built or adapted single household accommodation in a shared site or building. The accommodation is rented or owned and is the occupant's own home.

At the time of our inspection there were 41 people receiving personal care using the service.

This was a risk-based assessment following concerns raised with us about medication management, staffing levels, and governance.

The provider was previously in breach of regulations relating to safe care and treatment (medicines management and risk oversight) and governance. Improvements were not found at this assessment, and the provider remained in breach of these regulations.

The provider did not always ensure safe care. We found repeated medication errors, incomplete records, and gaps in oversight. Systems for monitoring medicines and risks were not robust, creating potential harm.

Staffing levels were not always sufficient, particularly at night when one care worker was responsible for everyone in receipt of personal care. Reliance on agency staff affected continuity and oversight.

Governance arrangements were not robust. Audits and care records were inconsistent, limiting the provider’s ability to identify and act on risks.

Care planning was not always comprehensive or up to date to enable staff to provide safe consistent support. Some plans lacked detail about preferences and end-of-life wishes.

Improvements had been made since our last inspection, including introducing shift leads and competency checks, but these were recent and not fully established

People were generally positive about staff being kind and respectful, and we saw examples of care that promoted independence and choice. Adaptations such as adjustable kitchen units provided by the housing provider and not Highwood Mill supported people to live more independently.

We have asked the provider for an action plan in response to the concerns found at this assessment.

Updated 24 November 2025

People reported concerns about continuity of the support they provided and communication with leaders and office staff. Several said carers sometimes arrived outside agreed times without explanation, which disrupted routines and affected their ability to attend planned activities. People also told us they wanted clearer timetables of who would be visiting.

Other people shared mixed experiences of the care and support they received. Many spoke positively about staff being kind, respectful and committed to helping them maintain independence. One person told us they had regained mobility after staff worked with them over several months to adapt routines and encourage self-care.

Most people said they felt safe and knew who to contact if they had concerns. They were confident issues would be addressed and described staff as approachable and supportive. People told us staff did not rush care and gave them the time they needed. They valued opportunities to take part in activities, including outings, choir sessions and social events, which helped reduce isolation and maintain community links.

People’s preferences were generally respected, but this was not always consistent. For example, some people told us they had requested female carers for personal care, but this was not always honoured. The provider had since taken steps to ensure these preferences were met.

Staff supported people with complex needs and used detailed care plans to guide personalised care. Where people lacked capacity, staff involved relatives in decision-making and used tools such as communication boards to support understanding. People told us they were asked for consent before care was provided, and staff encouraged independence wherever possible.

People said they could raise concerns and felt listened to. Surveys and informal feedback were used to gather views, and staff spent time assisting those with communication needs to share their opinions. People were confident that complaints would be acted on and improvements made.

People described staff as caring and committed, but staffing shortages and reliance on agency workers affected continuity of care. People told us, “If only they had more staff.” The provider acknowledged these challenges and was working to recruit permanent staff and improve oversight of agency workers.