• Care Home
  • Care home

Holme House Care Home

Overall: Requires improvement read more about inspection ratings

Oxford Road, Gomersal, Cleckheaton, West Yorkshire, BD19 4LA (01274) 862021

Provided and run by:
Milelands Limited

Latest inspection summary

On this page

Our current view of the service

Requires improvement

Updated 26 February 2026

The dates of assessment were from 10 March 2026 to 2 April 2026, and we visited the service on 10 and 12 March 2026. Holme House is a care home for people who require personal and or nursing care, some of whom may be living with dementia. At the time of the assessment there were 52 people living in the service. This assessment was in part initiated following intelligence from partners and professionals identifying emerging risk, along with the aged rating.

The assessment identified significant shortfalls in governance, oversight and culture, which impacted on people’s safety, experience and outcomes. Systems to monitor quality and risk were not consistently effective. Audits and monitoring processes failed to identify or address ongoing issues, and improvements identified through the service improvement plan were not always implemented or sustained.

Care was not always delivered in a safe or consistent way, with risks not clearly identified, monitored or acted upon. Care records were frequently inaccurate and contradictory, which meant staff did not always have clear, up-to-date information to guide care. This also affected how responsive the service was, as people’s changing needs and preferences were not always reflected in practice.

People’s experiences of care were variable. Whilst some kind and compassionate interactions were observed, dignity was not always maintained and people did not consistently feel listened to, involved or emotionally supported. Opportunities for meaningful engagement and personalised care were limited, particularly for those who remained in their rooms.

Staff working relationships and communication were not always effective, and leadership, although knowledgeable, was not consistently visible or embedded in day-to-day practice. This contributed to a culture where staff did not always feel confident to speak up or assured that concerns would be acted upon.

Whilst there were some positive examples, including improved healthcare access and inclusive practices, these were not consistently experienced across the service. Overall, the service was not yet delivering consistently safe, effective, caring, responsive or well-led care.

We raised all identified concerns with the provider and also made safeguarding referrals to the local authority safeguarding team where necessary. The provider has been responsive to the assessment findings and has started to implement improvements.

The provider was in breach of 3 legal regulations in relation to need for consent, safeguarding and good governance. We have asked the provider for an action plan in response to the concerns found at this assessment.
 

People's experience of the service

Updated 26 February 2026

People’s experiences of the service were mixed, reflecting both positive interactions and notable inconsistencies in care delivery. Many people described staff as kind, with comments such as “They are very kind, I don’t have any problems” and “They are lovely girls” which demonstrated compassionate care was experienced at times, but this was not consistent for everyone. Other people reported delays and a lack of responsiveness, with 1 person stating, “Sometimes I have to wait for hours. Some [staff] are nice and some are not interested.”

Several people said they felt safe, however this was not always supported by their wider experience. For example, 1 person said, “I don’t have a buzzer in my room, I have to call out,” and another reported a call bell not working. This reflected our observations that people did not always have access to call systems, impacting their ability to seek help when needed.

People’s involvement in their care was limited, with many unaware of their care plans, and comments including, “I don’t see anything like that” and “I am not aware of a care plan.” This supported our findings that care records were not always person-centred or reflective of people’s current needs.

Experiences of choice and control were also variable. Some people felt able to make decisions, however others described limited opportunities for engagement, with 1 person stating, “There is nothing to do. It’s very limited.”

Feedback about leadership and communication was also inconsistent. While some relatives felt informed, others said they had not met the manager.

Overall, while people experienced some positive, caring interactions, these were not consistently embedded, and feedback from people and relatives reflected the wider concerns identified during the assessment.