The Rookery Care Home

Updated 2 December 2025

Date of assessment: 17 December 2025 to 6 January 2026.

The Rookery Care Home is a residential care home service providing support to older people, people with physical disabilities and people living with dementia. This service is registered to accommodate up to 30 people. At the start of the assessment the service was providing care and support to 24 people at the location. This assessment was unannounced which means the provider was not told an assessment was going to be starting beforehand.

The service was previously inspected and rated requires improvement overall, following a focused inspection carried out on 12 May 2021 (published on 22 June 2021). The report was published following CQC’s old inspection approach using key lines of enquiry (KLOEs), prompts and ratings characteristics.

Throughout our assessment of The Rookery Care Home, we identified shortfalls in the way the service was managed. We identified concerns relating to the environment, safe care and treatment, management of medicines, management of risks, fit and proper persons employed, management of the service and governance. We found the provider was in breach of the legal regulation relating to safe care and treatment and good governance.

An assessment has been undertaken of a service that is used by autistic people or people with a learning disability but is not registered as a specialist service. 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.

We identified several environmental hazards throughout the service, alongside infection prevention and control issues including the cleanliness of the building. Records showed staff had out-of-date training, and some had not completed essential training in key areas required to keep people safe. The environment did not support the needs of people living with dementia, as it lacked appropriate dementia friendly features. There was limited use of clear signage or orientation aids which would help people maintain their independence.

Quality assurance processes were ineffective. Audits did not identify important shortfalls in care quality or safety, and risks were neither fully assessed nor adequately managed. Strategic priorities for improvement were unclear. This demonstrated a breakdown in the feedback and improvement cycle and limited the service’s ability to make meaningful, sustained progress. Prompt action to address issues was taken during and after our assessment of this service.

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.

Updated 2 December 2025

We observed care being delivered at The Rookery Care Home and spoke with people and their relatives to gather feedback. People and their relatives felt the home and care provided were safe. Staff were described as caring, kind, and friendly. People and their relatives felt there were enough staff, and communal areas always had carers present. People and their relatives said those receiving care were clean and well presented.

Meals were well received, with choices available and flexibility to eat in communal areas or bedrooms. People were offered second helpings and pudding options. We observed positive interactions at lunch, and people appeared to enjoy the food. Relatives told us that adaptive cutlery and cups were used, and support was given by staff to cut or mash food if needed. People and their relatives were happy with the activities at the home and told us that staff encouraged but did not force participation. People had choices about when to get up or go to bed, what to wear, and privacy was respected during care.

People and their relatives told us they were involved with creating and updating care plans. Rooms were personalised. People and their relatives told us services such as occupational therapy, opticians, and hairdressers visited the home.

People and their relatives knew the registered manager and described them as approachable, friendly, “brilliant,” and “lovely.” People felt staff worked well together as a harmonious team, and management listened and acted on concerns. One relative said issues they raised were resolved by the next visit.

Some people or their relatives suggested improvements with the environment, communication, and cleanliness. Two relatives reported laundry issues, with clothes sometimes not returned or mixed up. Some relatives found arranging dentist visits difficult. We identified problems with the environment which had not been addressed by staff or management, creating risks of harm. The home had not made special consideration for people living with dementia.