Updated 24 February 2026
Date of Assessment: 12 March to 01 May 2026. Atholl House is an extra‑care housing scheme providing regulated personal care for older adults and adults with disabilities. People live in their own self‑contained flats and receive planned support to maintain independence, safety, and wellbeing while remaining part of the local community.
We assessed the service against the Right support, right care, right culture guidance. While many elements of right support and right care were evident in practice, right culture was not yet consistently embedded, limiting assurance that good care and positive outcomes would be reliably experienced by all people using the service.
People received kind, respectful and person‑centred care from staff who knew them well and understood their needs, preferences, and vulnerabilities. People were positive about staff support, responsiveness and activities, and there was evidence that people’s views influenced aspects of daily life within the service. Relatives consistently praised the commitment, compassion, and professionalism of front‑line staff, particularly when people had multiple needs or required reassurance during care.
Care was safe, and staff understood how to manage risks, respond to urgent health needs, and escalate appropriately. The environment was appropriate for people’s needs, and systems were in place to support medicines management, infection control, and safe working practices. Staffing levels generally enabled care delivery, although staff were sometimes under pressure and continuity could be affected at peak times.
The service demonstrated good person‑centred practice in assessing needs, involving people in decisions where possible, and adapting communication using accessible formats. Consent and Mental Capacity Act (MCA) processes were applied appropriately, and people’s rights were respected. Individual examples showed that positive outcomes were achievable, including increased independence, improved wellbeing, enhanced communication, and stronger community engagement.
However, while good care was delivered on an individual basis, the service did not consistently monitor or evaluate outcomes across the whole service in a way that drove continuous improvement.
Learning from complaints, incidents and feedback was not consistently embedded or applied across the service, resulting in recurring themes and a lack of sustained improvement.
Leadership and governance arrangements had improved since the last inspection, and systems such as audits, meetings, reports, and improvement plans were in place. Leaders recognised areas for development and were taking action to address them. As a result, the service was no longer in breach of regulations at this inspection.
Governance systems were not consistently embedded, resulting in variable communication and reliance on individual or family advocacy rather than robust systems.
Partnership working occurred but was not always seamless, and coordination between services was sometimes delayed or unclear. People and relatives could raise concerns, and front‑line staff were approachable, however, relatives described mixed confidence that escalation would consistently lead to timely action and learning.