Amberley Hall Care Home

Updated 27 March 2026

Date of inspection 14 April to 16 May 2026. Amberley Hall is a care home that provides nursing care and supports people with physical disabilities or dementia. The care home can accommodate up to 106 people. At the time of our inspection, there were 101 people living in the service. We conducted a comprehensive inspection, which included 2 unannounced site visits, due to inherent risk and emerging risk. We observed the environment and spoke to people living in the service and healthcare professionals that visited the service. Offsite we gained feedback from people’s relatives and spoke to staff.

At the last inspection the provider was in breach of legal regulations relating to the need for consent, safe care and treatment, safeguarding, good governance and staffing. The service had made several improvements; however, they were still in breach of legal regulations in relation to safeguarding and good governance.

We identified incidents that occurred in the service were not always investigated appropriately and safeguarding referrals were not submitted to the Local Authority when the provider could not be assured that abuse had not taken place. We found care plan audits did not always identify inconsistencies within people’s care plans and the overall governance failed to identify gaps within their systems and processes.

However, the provider did ensure people always received medical attention following incidents. There was a collaborative working approach with healthcare professionals, and the provider was working with the Integrated Care Board (ICB) to improve discharge pathways from the local hospital. The provider had also identified issues with the current care planning software they were using and were in the process of moving to a new software at the end of our inspection.

The service has been in Special Measures since 11 July 2023. The service was still in breach in some areas we had previously identified on the last inspection, however, the provider demonstrated some improvements had been made. The service is no longer rated as inadequate overall or in any of the key questions. Therefore, this service is no longer in Special Measures. In instances where CQC has begun a process of regulatory action, we may publishthis information on our website after any representations and/or appeals have been concluded, if the action has been taken forward.

Updated 27 March 2026

We gained feedback from 17 people and 2 relatives onsite through inspection team members and an Expert by Experience. An Expert by Experience is an Individualwho has personal lived experience of using or caring for someone who uses adult social care services. Another Expert by Experience spoke to 6 relatives offsite, and we received 2 relative reviews through CQC’s website.

We received mixed feedback on the levels of staffing and involvement of reviewing care plans within the service. Some people felt they could do with more staff; feedback we received was “I think they could do with some more staff. Sometimes you have to wait a bit longer for help. It is maybe up to 30 minutes sometimes but not all the time” and “the staff don’t have time to sit and talk to you which is a shame.” However, other feedback we received was “they seem to come quite quickly if I do ring the bell. There always seems to be staff around” and “I think there seems to be enough staff here, I haven’t had any issues with having to wait for anything.”

Some people told us they did not know what was recorded within their care plans, feedback we received was “I am not aware of a care plan”, “I can’t recall any discussions about a care plan” and “we might have had a chat about a care plan but I couldn’t tell you anything about it.” However, other feedback we received said, “I have been involved in one care plan review” and “yeah, we helped produce it too, always interacting with them on changes.”

We also completed a Short Observational Framework for Inspection (SOFI). A SOFI is an observation we conduct that helps us identify the experience of people who cannot talk to us.We observed overall people appeared happy and there was a positive engagement of staff interaction with people living in the service.