- Care home
Hallmark Angmering Grange Luxury Care Home
Assessment report published 8 April 2026
Contents
Ratings
Our view of the service
Date of assessment: 13 November 2025 to 16 January 2026. Hallmark Angmering Grange Luxury Care Home is a residential home providing accommodation, personal and nursing care for up to 74 adults of all ages. At the time of our assessment, 62 people were using the service. This assessment was carried out as the service was unrated and required rating. We found 1 breach of legal regulation for governance relating to oversight of safe and effective staffing, auditing processes, leadership and culture of the organisation.
The service is required to have a registered manager. At the time of our assessment, the registered manager had left the service. The provider had existing leaders to support with the management of the service, such as a deputy manager and heads of department. In addition to this, a new regional team was in place to oversee the service while they were actively recruiting for the registered manager post.
The provider did not always have effective governance and oversight of the service. The provider had processes in place to monitor the culture of the service. However, this was not always effective.Leaders did not always foster a positive culture where staff felt they could speak up and their voice would be heard. We were not always assured the service had a positive culture of honesty and openness where staff felt they could speak up was fully embedded. The provider did not always make sure there were enough staff or effective deployment to ensure they had the right skills and experience to support people safely. Leaders did not always make sure staff received effective support and supervision. They did not always work together well to provide safe care that met people’s individual needs. The provider had tools and processes in place to monitor risks and safety for people. However, this was not always effective. Some people had not always been supported in line with their care needs. Concerns relating to people’s safety were not always documented in line with the providers policies and processes. This demonstrated the culture within the service was not consistently open, transparent or focused on learning. The provider had not identified all of the issues found during this assessment, indicating governance systems were not always effective in recognising and responding to risks.
We received mixed feedback from external professionals. They told us where people required specialised support, staff referred them to the appropriate professionals in a timely manner. However, they reported the service did not always have effective communication systems in place, both internally and externally. Professionals told us there had been some difficulties contacting the service and noted there was sometimes a breakdown of communication within the service. We identified instances where some people had not always been supported in line with their care needs. This meant that while partnership working was present, it was not consistently applied or fully embedded in daily practice.
Although the provider already had an action plan in place, this had not identified all of the issues we found during this assessment. They have subsequently taken further actions to address this. We will check for sustained improvement at our next assessment.
Staff supported people safely with their medicines. People had access to health and social care services when they needed it. People and relatives were involved in assessments prior to moving into the home. Care plans detailed how to support people. The service worked within the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and people were supported to have choice. The environment was clean, safe and accessible to all.
People's experience of this service
People and their relatives said they were happy with the staff at the service. However, people told us that it could be short staffed at times. They said there were often delays in getting help because staff were busy. Relatives gave mixed feedback about the number of staff of duty with some saying there were enough and others saying there were not. Records viewed did not always demonstrate consistent staffing levels or effective deployment of staff. This meant there was not always continuity of staff who knew people well.
Mechanisms for gathering feedback were in place, including resident and relative meetings, and surveys. However, not all people or relatives felt their views led to meaningful change. People had raised concerns about communication around activities and frequency of trips out. Whilst some actions had been taken, there was still room for improvements. We reviewed records submitted by the provider, including for people identified as being at higher risk of social isolation. While these showed that some activities had taken place, there were gaps which indicated not all people received consistent opportunities for engagement. This meant not all people had equal opportunities to minimise the risk of social isolation. People told us they were happy to discuss concerns with care staff. However, not all people were confident to raise concerns with leaders or felt anything would change if they did. This meant people did not always feel they were taken seriously when they shared concerns.The provider started making changes during this assessment to drive improvements. However, this was not fully embedded in practice.
People and relatives said staff were kind, caring and listened to them. People told us that staff respected their wishes and choices. Professionals spoke positively about staff being compassionate and welcoming. The home provided group activities for people which also involved local communities and volunteers. We observed how people were supported in communal areas effectively to engage in activities. We witnessed kind and meaningful interactions between staff and people. People were supported as per their end of life wishes.