- Care home
Amber House Residential Home
Assessment report published 2 July 2026
Contents
Ratings
Our view of the service
Date of inspection: 10 June to 22 June 2026. This inspection took place to follow up on enforcement action from the previous inspection. The service is residential home providing personal care to older adults, some of whom may be living with dementia.
The provider was previously in breach of the legal regulation in relation to person centred care, consent, safe care and treatment, safe and effective staff and good governance. Improvements were found on this inspection, and the provider was no longer in breach of these regulations.
Safeguarding processes had strengthened, with staff demonstrating improved understanding and prompt reporting. Risks were managed well through improved, accurate documentation. The environment was safer and better maintained. Staffing had improved but remained an area for development. Cleanliness had strengthened, supported by better organisation. Medicines management had improved, but documentation gaps showed the need for stronger oversight.
People’s needs were assessed and reviewed effectively. Care and treatment were supported by more frequent reviews and clearer, more consistent documentation. Multidisciplinary working had strengthened. People were supported to manage their health and wellbeing, although oral health recording still required improvement. The monitoring of people’s outcomes remained an area for development. Mental capacity assessments were in place, but more work was needed to ensure people who may not be able to make decisions for themselves were fully assessed.
Staff consistently showed kindness, empathy and respect, and people told us their privacy and dignity were upheld. People were supported as individuals. People were supported to maintain independence and had choice and control over how they lived and received their care. Staff responded promptly and sensitively to people’s needs. Staff felt supported, valued and confident.
People experienced person‑centred care. Care was joined‑up and flexible. People received information in formats suited to their needs. Engagement processes had improved, but not everyone was aware of opportunities to give feedback or attend meetings. People could access the care, support and treatment they needed. Better‑quality information helped staff understand diverse needs and tailor care for people at risk of inequalities. However, end‑of‑life planning remained under‑developed.
Leaders and staff shared a clearer vision. Leadership was developing, but further work was still needed to strengthen capability and consistency. People and staff felt able to speak up. Staff worked in an inclusive environment However, governance systems needed further improvement, with unclear audits and inconsistent follow-up. Although, the provider worked collaboratively with external partners and had made significant progress, improving the overall quality of care.
People's experience of this service
Overall feedback from people and relatives was very positive, with many describing a clear contrast to the last inspection and recognising the progress the service had made. People told us they were generally happy living at the service, felt safe, and felt able to raise concerns or issues if needed. They spoke positively about the management team and the wider staff group, describing them as approachable and supportive. One person said, “Staff are excellent and kind.”
Where people could not speak with us, we used The Short Observational Framework for Inspection (SOFI). SOFI is a way of observing care to help us understand the experience of people who could not talk with us. Our observations found people were supported by staff as needed, but activities and engagement was not always meaningful.
Relatives were particularly complimentary about the care support manager, saying they trusted any concerns raised with them would be addressed promptly and appropriately. A relative said, “[Care support manager name] always responds to anything you raise.”
Relatives also told us they had seen noticeable improvements in the quality of care and the overall running of the service. While they acknowledged some areas still required further development, they recognised change would take time and felt reassured progress was ongoing. Some relatives said they would like to be more involved in their family member’s care planning and felt communication about meetings and service updates could be clearer. They also expressed a desire for more frequent and meaningful activities, although they were aware that a new activity coordinator had recently been appointed to take this forward.
A small number of people and relatives commented staff still appeared busy and rushed, but emphasised staff remained responsive, caring and attentive despite these pressures. There was a shared sense of optimism over staffing and how capacity would continue to improve as the provider strengthened it’s systems and embedded new ways of working.