- Homecare service
Atholl House
Assessment report published 27 May 2026
Contents
Ratings
Our view of the service
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.
People's experience of this service
People were positive about the care and support they received at Atholl House and described staff as kind, respectful and responsive. People said staff supported them well, were approachable and took time to respond to requests, and they spoke positively about activities and opportunities to engage with others within the service. There was evidence that people’s views influenced aspects of daily life, including activities, routines and how care was delivered.
Relatives praised the commitment and compassion of front‑line staff, particularly when supporting people with multiple health needs or high levels of dependence. One relative described staff as “nothing short of amazing” and another said staff “mostly take very good care of [my relative].” People felt safe receiving support and were reassured that staff responded appropriately when urgent help was needed.
People were treated with dignity and respect, and staff knew people well, understood their needs and worked within agreed care plans. People were supported to maintain independence and privacy wherever possible, and staff were described as patient and understanding, particularly where people experienced anxiety, distress, or vulnerability during care.
Experiences of communication and involvement beyond day‑to‑day care were more mixed. While some relatives felt listened to and able to raise concerns, others described frustration with inconsistent communication from management and a lack of proactive updates when changes occurred. This meant that positive experiences at the point of care were not always matched by consistent reassurance or involvement at a management level.
Some people using the service were not always able to verbally communicate their experiences. We gathered evidence through observations of interactions, review of care records and outcomes documentation, and feedback from relatives. This showed staff interacted positively with people, adapted communication to individual needs, and supported people to engage in activities and community life where possible.