During an assessment under our new approach
About the service
Southlands Residential Care Home is a residential home providing accommodation and personal care for up to 33 people. At the time of our assessment, 27 people were living at the service.
Who the service is for
Southlands Residential Care Home supports older people living with physical disabilities and sensory impairment.
Our view of the service
We carried out this assessment between the 12 August and 26 August 2026. This service was previously rated as good. We carried out this assessment 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 on 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. We found that staff and management worked within the MCA. 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.
We found people were safe and received person-centred care from staff who knew them well. Staff understood people’s individual preferences, communication needs and routines and we observed positive interactions throughout our visit. People were supported to maintain relationships with family and friends, participate in activities and access healthcare services when needed. Staff and relatives described an open and supportive culture, and people told us they would feel confident raising concerns if required.
Governance arrangements were structured and included home audits, group audits, management reviews, senior meetings and electronic monitoring systems.
We saw records of audits and monitoring taking place across the organisation, including at provider level.
Incidents and accidents were reviewed, learning was identified and actions were taken to reduce the likelihood of recurrence.
Staff received regular training, supervision and competency assessments and recruitment processes were operated safely. Staff told us, “The team is kind, supportive and we look out for each other. There’s a really positive, caring atmosphere between staff, and we all have the residents best interest at heart”, and “We aim to care around trust and integrity, always supporting, always learning, always improving and caring like you would a family member”.
Medicines were managed safely, with appropriate training, oversight and monitoring arrangements in place.
The service environment was clean, well maintained and systems were in place to monitor fire safety, infection prevention and control, equipment servicing and environmental risks.
People's care records generally reflected their assessed needs and demonstrated involvement from healthcare professionals. We saw evidence of monitoring and escalation where people experienced changes in their health.
Activities and opportunities for social engagement were available and people told us they enjoyed spending time with others, maintaining family relationships and accessing the home's outdoor areas.
We identified some areas where improvements were still required to ensure governance systems consistently identified and addressed risks. While risks to people were usually recognised, some risk assessments and care records lacked sufficient detail to provide clear guidance for staff. For example, we found gaps in guidance relating to oxygen use, rescue medicines and CCTV arrangements. Although some of these issues were addressed during the assessment, they had not always been identified through the provider's own quality assurance processes. We also found some inconsistencies within care plans and records.
The registered manager was open, responsive and engaged positively throughout the assessment process. We saw examples where feedback was acted upon promptly and improvements were made during the assessment.