Palmerston House Care Home

Updated 18 June 2026

This Inspection took place between 25 June 2026 to 10 July 2026 and was carried out to follow up on previous enforcement action and breaches of regulation. Palmerston House Care Home provides residential care and support for older people, including those living with dementia.

At the previous assessment held between 27 November 2025 and 18 December 2025, the provider was in breach of three regulations relating to person‑centred care, safe care and treatment, and good governance. At this assessment, we found that the provider had taken appropriate action and all previous breaches had been met. Significant improvements had been made across the service, particularly in relation to governance, safety systems and care planning processes.

Overall, the service at this assessment demonstrated a good standard of care. People were supported safely, received effective care and were treated with dignity and respect. People and professionals spoke positively about the service, describing it as safe, welcoming and well managed. Feedback indicated that people felt comfortable and supported, and that staff understood their needs well.

The service had developed a strong and proactive culture of safety. Systems were in place to identify, investigate and learn from incidents, with clear evidence that lessons learned were shared across the staff team. There were effective processes for managing risks, maintaining a safe environment and ensuring sufficient staffing levels with appropriately trained staff.

Care was generally effective and based on people’s individual needs, with good partnership working across health and social care professionals. People received support that promoted their wellbeing and enabled them to maintain independence. However, some areas required further strengthening, including the monitoring of care records and consistency in capturing consent, to ensure care was fully effective and consistently documented.

People were treated with kindness, compassion and respect. Staff demonstrated a good understanding of individuals and delivered personalised care that took account of people’s preferences, backgrounds and needs. There was a positive culture within the service, where people were supported to maintain choice and control.

The service was responsive, with person‑centred care plans and good systems in place to gather and act on feedback. There was evidence of strong partnership working and communication with external professionals, which contributed to positive outcomes for people.

The service was well led. There had been marked improvements in governance and oversight, with robust auditing systems, clear accountability and strong leadership from the registered manager. Continuous learning and improvement were embedded within practice, supporting the delivery of safe, effective and high‑quality care.

In summary, the provider had made clear and sustained improvements since the last assessment, ensuring people received good quality care, though some areas continued to require embedding and consistency.

Updated 18 June 2026

During the assessment, we received feedback from people who used the service and relatives. Some people could not directly tell us about their experience. For these individuals we used observations including the short observational framework for inspection (SOFI) to help us assess the quality of care they received.

People’s experiences of the service were mixed. While many people and relatives spoke positively about the kindness of staff and the safety of the service, others raised concerns about stimulation, communication and consistency in care delivery.

Most people and relatives told us they felt the service was a safe place to live. People described staff as responsive and said call bells were answered promptly. Relatives reported that staff were generally available and attentive, and that medicines were managed appropriately. One person told us, “[Staff] always come quickly, I don’t worry about this,” and another said, “Yes, I feel safe. [Staff] are good here.”

People and relatives consistently described staff as kind, patient and respectful. Positive relationships between people and staff were evident, with several people describing a relaxed and friendly atmosphere. One person said, “Most [staff] are very good.” Relatives told us their family members generally appeared clean and well presented, although a small number raised concerns about personal care being inconsistent or not always delivered in a timely way.

Some relatives reported being involved in care planning and decision-making, particularly when people first moved into the service. Others said they had not been involved in reviews or updates, despite changes in their relative’s needs.

Relatives told us staff worked well with healthcare professionals and sought appropriate medical support when needed. People were supported with eating and drinking, and some relatives described improvements in their relative’s health. However, some concerns were raised about weight loss, delayed communication about appointments and variability in how care needs were monitored.

A consistent theme from people and relatives was a lack of meaningful activities and social engagement. While some activities were available, such as exercise sessions, many felt there was insufficient stimulation, particularly for people living with dementia. Comments included that people were often “sat in front of the TV” and could become bored. This was seen to impact people’s mood and wellbeing.

Most people knew who to speak to if they had concerns and described the manager as approachable.

Overall, while people benefited from kind and attentive staff and generally felt safe, improvements were needed to ensure people consistently received stimulating, person‑centred care with effective communication and involvement of relatives.