- Care home
Southlands Residential Care Home
Assessment report published 28 September 2026
Contents
Ratings
Our view of the service
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.
People's experience of this service
People living at Southlands Residential Care Home were supported by staff who knew them well and understood their individual preferences, routines and personal histories.
People told us they felt safe living at the service and relatives felt the same, comments included, “100% safe and we are very happy with the care”, and “Safe yes! Definitely”.
People, relatives and staff consistently described positive and caring relationships within the home. Staff spoke confidently about people's likes, dislikes, communication preferences and daily routines and explained how they adapted support to reflect people's individual wishes.
Bedrooms were personalised and reflected people's identities and preferences. People told us they could spend time where they chose within the home, access the garden regularly and continue to see family and friends without restriction.
People told us they were involved in decisions about menus, activities and aspects of life within the home through resident meetings and informal discussions with staff. One relative told us, “They have always accommodated her and given her an alternative when required/ needed. The residents had a meeting, and they asked for more salad in the summer and more vegetables in the winter and they listened to them. She is living a good life”.
Relatives told us communication was good and they felt involved in care planning and decision-making.
People were treated with kindness, dignity and respect. During our observations we saw warm, relaxed and positive interactions between people and staff. Staff took time to talk with people and used humour and reassurance to support wellbeing and maintain positive relationships. People told us staff were kind and respectful, and relatives consistently described compassionate care.
Staff understood the importance of protecting privacy during personal care and explained how they closed curtains and doors, knocked before entering bedrooms and ensured personal information remained confidential.
The service promoted people's independence, choice and control. Staff described encouraging people to do as much as possible for themselves and tailoring support to individual abilities.
Feedback from people, relatives and staff was predominantly positive, comments included, “10/10, I just did a rating of 10/10”, and “I always joke with them, keep a space for me wont they, when it is my time, I will have a room. The service is amazing”. Nevertheless, some people and relatives told us weekend activities could be more limited than during weekdays and some expressed concerns that agency staff did not always know people's needs as well as permanent staff. Despite this, people generally felt regular staff understood them well and respected their wishes.