- Care home
Houndswood House Care Home
We imposed 3 conditions on Ashray Holdings Limited on 7 January 2026 for immediate assurances around safe admissions processes, and ongoing oversight of fluid and repositioning monitoring and effective support for people in distress.
Assessment report published 26 January 2026
Contents
Ratings
Our view of the service
Houndswood House is a care home.It provides accommodation, personal and nursing care for up to 50 people. At this assessment 17 people were living at the service. This assessment was carried out to follow up on concerns found about the quality and safety of the service at our last assessment. Assessment activity took place between 28 October 2025 and 3 December 2025. We visited the service on 28 October 2025. This was an unannounced assessment completed by 4 inspectors and 1 senior specialist. We received feedback from 15 staff, 2 professionals, 5 people who used the service and 9 relatives. At our last inspection, in April 2025, we rated the service inadequate and identified breaches in relation to medicines management, management of risk, safeguarding, staffing, dignity, person centred care and good governance. We found the service had improved but remained in breach of regulations in relation to person-centred care, managing risk, staffing and good governance.
The provider had not ensured there were enough competent staff to provide safe care. Staff did not always follow care plans or complete monitoring charts for fluid intake and repositioning, leaving people at risk of dehydration and pressure injuries. People’s oral care was inconsistent, and infection prevention control was not always managed well.
The provider had improved incident and safeguarding management by promoting openness and honesty; staff reported incidents more consistently and these were reported to external organisations when required.
The provider had not ensured there was effective communication between all teams.
People’s social needs were not always met, and some were at risk of isolation. Staff did not document distressed behaviours well or consistently. People’s mental capacity assessments did not always show how people were supported to understand decisions.
People’s care was not always tailored to their individual needs and preferences. Staff interactions with people were often task-focused, and some people reported staff were not always kind. People were offered activities, but some people’s preferences were not fully supported.
Staff felt supported, and supervisions were held.
People and relative’s involvement in care planning had improved, and health needs were generally well managed with input from professionals. The provider did not always have information available in accessible formats. Communication with families had improved but remained inconsistent, and complaints were not always recorded.
The provider’s governance systems to monitor the safety and quality of the service were not yet effective. The provider’s training compliance tracking was unreliable, and some competency issues remained. The culture of the home had improved, and staff felt supported. Leadership was more stable, and staff were encouraged to raise concerns.
The provider demonstrated improved collaboration with external partners and responsiveness to feedback. While progress had been made, further work was needed to ensure robust governance and consistently person-centred care.
Where CQC have taken civil or criminal enforcement action against a provider, we will publish this on our website after any representations and/ or appeals have been concluded.
People's experience of this service
People were not always supported by enough staff to meet their social and communication needs. While some residents and relatives felt there were sufficient staff, others reported delays in receiving help and a lack of time for meaningful social interaction. Staff were often observed to be task-focused, with limited opportunities to engage residents beyond essential care. This contributed to a risk of social isolation, particularly for those with mental health conditions or those who preferred to stay in their rooms. People were offered activities, but not all felt their preferences were fully supported. People gave mostly positive feedback about the care they received, but some people felt not all staff treated them with kindness or empathy. There were instances where staff interactions were described as brusque or lacking in friendliness. However, there were improvements in dignity and respect. People’s relatives generally felt people were safe and well cared for, though some expressed concerns about communication with management.
People and their relative’s involvement in care planning had improved with relatives being invited to reviews and kept informed about incidents. People’s complaints were not always recorded, though those who raised concerns felt they were addressed appropriately. Information provided to residents, such as activity schedules and menus, was not always in accessible formats or up to date.
People gave positive feedback about food quality and mealtime support. Meals were prepared to appropriate textures, and staff ensured residents were comfortable during meals. Staff made efforts to learn about residents’ preferences directly, offering flexibility in meal choices.