- Care home
Clover Cottage
Assessment report published 7 October 2026
Contents
Ratings
Our view of the service
About the service
Clover Cottage is a residential care home that provides accommodation and personal care for up to 17 people. At the time of the inspection 15 people were living at the service.
The accommodation is arranged over 2 levels. The ground floor is accessible for people with physical disabilities or restricted mobility.
Who the service is for
The service supports older people including people living with dementia, sensory impairment and physical health needs.
Key findings
We carried out this assessment on 16 September 2026 to confirm whether the rating of good remains accurate. This report does not provide detailed information on areas where we found practice continues to meet a good standard. Instead, our findings focus if we found any areas where the service needs to improve or where we found exceptional practice.
People can only be deprived of their liberty to receive care and treatment with appropriate legal authority. In care homes, this can be done through a procedure called the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS), which is part of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). We checked whether the service was working within the principles of the MCA and how they managed DoLS within the service. Staff and management worked within the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) authorisations were appropriately applied for and overseen. People were not subject to unlawful or excessive restrictions they had choice, control and freedom over their lives.
People told us they felt safe living at the home and relatives spoke positively about the care and support provided. A person told us, “Yes, I do feel safe and secure here. Carers are good with me. They are so caring and so good.” Another person said, “Staff and environment make me feel safe here. I really do like it. It just lovely here.”
The environment was clean, odour free, well maintained and free from hazards, with appropriate safety checks completed and equipment in good order. The provider carried out various checks on the physical environment to help ensure it was safe. These included tests by qualified contractors relating to fire, gas, electricals and water safety. The provider also carried out health and safety assessments to ensure the premises were safe for people.
Staffing levels were stable, and staff described feeling well supported by visible and approachable leaders. We observed kind, respectful and unhurried interactions between staff and people throughout the day. Staff supported people safely with mobility and equipment, explaining what they were doing and offering reassurance. Records showed staff had undertaken training to support their knowledge and understanding of how to keep people safe. They knew of their responsibilities to protect people from harm.
Care plans were person centred and covered key areas of people’s needs and risks. People and relatives were involved in planning and reviews of the care. Risks to people were assessed and management plans were in place to inform staff how to reduce and manage risks to maintain people’s safety. For example, we saw risk assessments had been undertaken for people who were at risk of falls.
A system was in place to record and monitor accidents and incidents within the service. The registered manager investigated all accidents and incidents, taking appropriate action to reduce the risk of recurrence and ensure people remained safe. We saw evidence that learning from incidents was embedded within the service, with appropriate actions identified, implemented, and monitored to improve safety and improve the quality of care.
Medicines were mostly managed in a safe way. Medicines administration charts were maintained. We saw these had been competed accurately, and they were regularly audited by a senior member of staff. However, we found that for medicines prescribed on a ‘as required’ [PRN] basis, there were no guidelines in place for staff about when to administer these medicines. We discussed this with the registered manager who told us they would draft PRN protocol for the people identified during our inspection.
Staff demonstrated a strong understanding of people’s individual needs, preferences, and personal circumstances, enabling them to develop positive, respectful, and trusting relationships.
The service promoted an open, inclusive, and person-centred culture. Staff, people using the service, relatives, and external professionals were actively encouraged to contribute to the ongoing development and continuous improvement of the service.
The provider maintained effective partnerships with the local community and relevant organisations, supporting a coordinated and collaborative approach to delivering high-quality care.
The quality assurance and governance systems were in place to monitor the quality, safety, and effectiveness of the service. These processes supported continuous learning, identified areas for improvement, and helped drive positive outcomes for people using the service. The registered manager shared their service improvement plan with us, and we observed some improvement had already made.
People's experience of this service
People told us they had a positive experience of living at Clover Cottage and felt safe, comfortable and well cared for. During our visit, the atmosphere across areas of the home was calm, welcoming and relaxed. People appeared settled and at ease in communal areas, and those who preferred quieter spaces were supported to spend time in their rooms. A person told, “This place is nice.”
People and their relatives were positive about the care and support provided by staff. They said the management team were approachable, accessible, and friendly. People told us they were happy living at the service and with the support they received from staff. They were aware of how to raise any concerns or complaints with the service. A person said, “All staff are good and I got no complaint whatsoever. I got the freedom, which I like.” A relative told us, “The management team in the home is very good. They keep me informed of everything. Our families have been visiting my [person]. They welcomed all of us.”
We carried out observations of care and saw staff interacting with people in a respectful, compassionate and unhurried way. Staff explained what they were doing, offered reassurance and used clear verbal prompts when supporting people with mobility. We observed people being supported using stand aids and hoists safely and with dignity.
Mealtimes were observed to be well organised and responsive. People were asked for their choice, and food looked fresh and appealing. A person told us, “The food tasted good. I enjoyed it.”
The provider promoted the equality and diversity of people. They ensured people had equal opportunities, regardless of their abilities, their background or their lifestyle. For example, people had equal access to activities considering their individual circumstances. A person said, “A musician visited and entertained us last week which I enjoyed very much.” We also observed people walking around the garden and enjoyed a cup of tea there.
People received personalised care and support that was tailored to their individual needs. We found people’s care plans gave sufficient instructions to staff on how to deliver care and support to people in accordance with their wishes. The care plans were reviewed and updated regularly or when the need arose. Any changes in people's needs were recorded and discussed during staff handovers. This helped to ensure people who used the service received the care and support they needed.
People were encouraged and supported to pursue their interests and maintain links with the community. Staff supported people to stay in touch with their relatives and to maintain relationships with the people who mattered to them. Relatives told us they could visit their loved ones and were always made welcome.
The registered manager operated an open-door policy where people, relatives and staff were able to discuss any issues they might have. This helped to ensure the service ran smoothly. A staff told us, “The registered manager comes to the lounge everyday and asks us about everyone’s wellbeing. They also encourage us to report concerns or speak to them in private.”
People told us they were able to speak with the registered manager at any time. There were regular meetings for staff where they had opportunities to discuss any issues or share any ideas. There were also meetings held for people their relatives as well where they were given opportunities to discuss any concerns they might have. The provider conducted surveys with people and their relatives. Comments from the surveys included, “We have no doubts that [person] is in the best place, receiving quality of care. Most importantly, they are happy. Thank you, Clover Cottage.”, “Thank you for your care and patience with [person]. Its such a peace of mind that they are so well looked after.”, And “Its such a lovely and welcoming environment. My [person]is very contended here and always says they are happy. Its always very clean. I feel my [person] is looked after very well. Staff work so hard and always so friendly.”
The registered manager worked closely with other health and social care professionals to ensure the people received the care and support they needed. Records showed they had regular contact with multi-disciplinary teams to discuss people’s on-going needs or to seek advice. A healthcare professional told us, “Staff are very good. They are very compassionate and committed. Communication is outstanding. Staff provides us with detailed information which really help us.”
The registered manager kept themselves up to date with best practice. They attended meetings run by local authorities or networking events on a regular basis to share ideas on how they could improve their services further.