- Care home
Silverdale Nursing Home
We issued a notice of decision to impose conditions on Silverdale Care Homes Limited on 27 January 2025 for failing to ensure a sufficient number of suitably qualified, trained, skilled and experienced staff who were able to meet the needs of people with learning disabilities and/or autism. The provider also failed to ensure compliance with current guidance and failed to ensure they had the systems, knowledge, skills and competency to provide personal care to people with learning disabilities or autistic people. Systems in place to monitor the quality of the service failed to ensure the model of care was consistent with current guidance regarding providing support for people with learning disabilities at Silverdale Nursing Home.
Assessment report published 8 July 2026
Contents
Ratings
Our view of the service
Date of assessment 07 May to 11 June 2026. The service is a residential care home providing nursing care for adults of all ages, including people with physical disabilities, sensory impairments and people living with dementia. The service is not registered to provide specialist support for autistic people or people with a learning disability, although a small number of people with these needs were living at the home. This inspection took place to follow up on enforcement action taken at the previous inspection and assess whether the provider remained in breach of legal requirements.
We have assessed the service against ‘Right support, Right care, Right culture’ guidance to make judgements about whether the provider guaranteed people with a learning disability and autistic people respect, equality, dignity, choices, independence and good access to local communities that most people take for granted.
People were not always kept safe because systems in place were not consistently effective. The provider had not made enough improvements since the last inspection, and there was limited evidence lessons had been learned when things went wrong. Safeguarding processes were not always followed properly, meaning incidents were not always reported or reviewed as they should have been, which put people at risk.
Environmental monitoring and medicine management needed improvement to ensure risks were identified and reduced. However, there were some areas of good practice. Infection control procedures were in place, and staff understood people’s health needs and escalated concerns when necessary.
People did not always receive effective care and treatment. While some aspects of care, such as support with health, consent and clinical needs, were managed well. People’s immediate needs were not always responded to safely, and care was not always provided in line with best practice or the principles of ‘Right support, Right care, Right culture’. Working with other professionals was also inconsistent, meaning opportunities to improve people’s outcomes were sometimes missed.
Systems to monitor quality and safety of the service were not effective. There was not a clear, shared culture or vision, especially in relation to supporting people with a learning disability. Risks were not always identified, and improvements were not always made. Although leaders had started to make some changes and responded to our feedback, these improvements were not yet fully in place or consistently maintained.
This service is being placed in special measures. The purpose of special measures is to ensure that services providing inadequate care make significant improvements. Special measures provide a framework within which we use our enforcement powers in response to inadequate care and provide a timeframe within which providers must improve the quality of the care they provide
The provider was previously in breach of regulations relating to person-centred care, safe staffing and good governance. At this inspection, some improvements were found in safe staffing, and the provider was no longer in breach of this regulation. However, sufficient improvement was not found in person-centred care and good governance, and breaches of these regulations remained. In addition, a new breach was identified in relation to safeguarding.
In instances where CQC has begun a process of regulatory action, we may publish this information on our website after any representations and/or appeals have been concluded, if the action has been taken forward. In addition, we have asked the provider for an action plan in response to the concerns found at this inspection.
People's experience of this service
People told us they felt safe living at the service and were supported by kind and caring staff. They said staff treated them with respect and supported them to make choices about their daily lives and take part in activities they enjoyed. One person said, “I can make my own choices.” Relatives also spoke positively about the care provided. They described staff as patient and considerate, particularly when helping people with their mobility and with taking their medicines.
People and relatives shared mixed views about how well the service met people’s needs. Relatives told us people were supported to attend healthcare appointments, kept informed about changes, and involved in day-to-day decisions. However, some relatives felt there were not enough meaningful activities and more personalised support would improve people’s experience.
Feedback about being able to share views about the service was also mixed. Some people and relatives said they were given opportunities to give feedback, including completing questionnaires. Others felt they did not have enough chances to share their views.
We also used a tool called the Short Observational Framework for Inspection (SOFI). This helps inspectors understand the experiences of people who may not be able to tell us directly how they feel about the care they receive. Our observations found staff responded quickly when needed and respected people’s choices. While people expressed general satisfaction with their care, our inspection found elements of care did not meet the expected standards.