Tenby House

Updated 9 April 2026

Date of assessment 23 April – 13 May 2026. Tenby House is a residential care home providing support to people with a variety of health conditions, including frailty of old age and dementia. This assessment was undertaken due to an aged rating.

We found 1 new breach of regulation relating to safe care and treatment.

Some aspects of medicines were not managed safely. A medicine that required secure storage was found to be unlabelled leading to the risk of misappropriation or misuse of this drug which potentially put people at risk. The medicine was due to be returned to the pharmacy. The staff member giving people their lunchtime medicines failed to sanitise their hands which put people at risk of infection.

There was a culture of learning when accidents or incidents occurred. Safe systems ensured staff worked collaboratively with a range of professionals to provide consistent and co-ordinated care. Safeguarding requirements were met, and any instances of abuse or alleged abuse were notified appropriately to the local authority and the Commission. Apart from some aspects in the management of medicines, people’s risks were assessed and managed safely. The home provided a safe, clean environment. Staffing levels were sufficient to meet people’s care and support needs, and staff completed a range of training in line with their roles.

People’s needs were assessed before they moved into the home, and a range of monitoring tools was used to support the care they received from staff. A variety of health and social care professionals supported people to live healthier lives, and to achieve good outcomes. People’s consent to care was routinely sought by staff.

People were cared for by kind and compassionate staff who knew them well; their dignity was respected. People were encouraged with their independence, and there were no restrictions on people receiving visits. The home supported staff with their wellbeing and regular supervisions, enabling staff to make suggestions or voice any concerns.

People received personalised care that catered for their likes, dislikes and preferences. Care plans provided information for staff about how people wished to be cared for. Staff completed training in equality and diversity and demonstrated their understanding in practice. Staff also completed training in end-of-life care.

The culture of the home shaped the environment, the quality of care and daily life for people and staff. A positive culture had been developed that was focused on person-centred care and giving people dignity and choice on what was important to them. A robust system of audits monitored the home overall and was used to drive improvements, although the issues we found with regard to the management of medicines had not been identified through the provider’s audits.

Updated 9 April 2026

People felt safe living at Tenby House. One person said, “They’re good to us and I don’t have to worry about anything.” People felt there were sufficient staff to meet their needs, although we observed occasions when staff were not readily available. A relative said, “There’s plenty of staff. There’s less at the weekend, but he doesn’t have to wait.” Positive feedback was given with regard to the training of staff, and the cleanliness of the home.

People and their families were involved in assessments before they came to live at Tenby House. Phased admissions, if needed, meant that people could stay at the home for a short period before they moved in permanently. People were encouraged to live healthy lives with healthy diets. A relative told us, “It’s meat and veg. He eats what they put in front of him, but he eats what he fancies. If he fancies a jam sandwich at any time, they’ll make it for him.” People were encouraged to make choices about the care they received, and their consent was routinely sought.

We observed people did not always receive timely assistance from staff when they needed it. For example,1 person continually asked to go out through the front door, but instead of staff trying to distract them, they were told the door did not open. This had upset the person and left them confused and distressed, especially when they saw others coming in or leaving the home.

People told us the staff were caring and kind and looked after them well. A range of activities was organised for people, with external entertainers also visiting the home. One person said, “They have lots of entertainment and they take you out sometimes. What they do is wonderful.”

People received personalised care from staff who knew them well; their diverse needs were acknowledged and catered for. If people had any complaints, they could talk to staff and their concerns would be taken seriously.

People were positive about the way the home was managed and the care and support they received. Relatives could attend meetings to give their feedback. One relative said, “They had one a while ago, but not many turned up. People [relatives] didn’t bring up much. It didn’t seem like a meeting, more like a chat.”