The Old School House Care Home

Date of assessment: 3 June 2026 and 11 June 2026. The assessment was carried out in response to concerns raised about safety, medicines and leadership.

The Old School House Care Home is a residential care home providing personal care for up to 36 people, including older people and people living with dementia, mental health conditions and physical disabilities. At the time of our assessment there were 22 people living at the service.

At our last assessment the provider was in breach of 2 legal regulations in relation to premises and equipment and good governance. At this assessment shortfalls remained, which meant the provider had not taken sufficient action to ensure consistent standards of quality and safety across the service. The provider remained in breach of legal regulations related to premises and equipment, and good governance. We also identified a further 2 breaches in relation to safe care and treatment and dignity and respect.

At this assessment, we found concerns relating to people’s safety, the quality of care provided and the effectiveness of governance systems. These concerns were reflected across multiple quality statements and demonstrated a service where systems to ensure safe, effective and high-quality care were not consistently in place or embedded.

We observed poor moving and handling techniques and identified unsafe practices which did not follow best practice guidance. Risks associated with nutrition, hydration and skin integrity were not consistently managed safely. Medicines management systems were not always effective, and audits had not identified some gaps such as missing ‘when required’ (PRN) protocols. Environmental risks were not well managed. We found fire safety checks, equipment checks and legionella monitoring were not consistently completed, and some fire doors were not functioning effectively.

Care was not always delivered in line with people’s assessed needs. We identified inconsistencies between care plans and the care people received, including records which did not accurately reflect care delivery. Some people were not supported in a person-centred way, and there was evidence of poor communication and limited engagement.

Leadership and governance were not always effective. There had been instability in the management of the service, with no registered manager in post at the time of our assessment. Governance systems were in place, however these systems were not consistently embedded in identifying, acting on, and sustaining improvements. Audits had identified concerns, including environmental and safety risks, but action had not always been taken or maintained. There was evidence repeated issues identified at our previous assessment had not been fully addressed, including cleanliness and lack of meaningful activity.

Overall, we found ongoing and widespread concerns relating to safety, care delivery and governance. These issues had a direct impact on people’s experience of care, including their safety, dignity and wellbeing.

The provider was working alongside the local authority team and other professionals as part of a safeguarding process. The provider had implemented an action plan to make improvements within the service. Since our assessment as part of local authority safeguarding process, professionals have told us the service is making improvements to the quality of care.

We have asked the provider for an action plan in response to the concerns identified at this assessment.

In instances where CQC have decided to take civil or criminal enforcement action against a provider, we will publish this information on our website after any representations and/ or appeals have been concluded.

Date of Assessment: 7 to 17 April 2025. We visited the care home on 7 and 14 April 2025. We carried out this assessment in response to concerns raised regarding the quality of the service. The Old School House Care Home is a residential care home providing support for up to 36 people. At the time of our visits there were 27 people using the service. The service is a residential service providing support to older people, adults living with dementia, mental health conditions, and physical disabilities. We assessed all 33 Quality Statements under all 5 Key Questions of: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well Led. This assessment showed areas of good practice, as well as areas that needed to improve. Our overall rating for this service is Requires Improvement.

The provider was in breach of 2 legal regulations relating to; the maintenance of the premises and equipment in the home, and the governance of the service.​

The facilities and equipment in the home were not always clean or well-maintained, and did not always meet people’s needs. By our second visit on 15 April the situation had improved, but further improvement was still necessary. There was no culture of continuous improvement. The provider’s audit and oversight processes had not improved the quality of the service. The service had an improving learning culture and people could raise concerns, and staff understood and managed risks. Managers investigated incidents thoroughly and people were protected and kept safe. Managers made sure staff received training and regular appraisals to improve their abilities and progress. There were not enough staff with the right skills, qualifications and experience when we first visited. However, the numbers of staff were increased, and how they were deployed across the 3 floors of the care home was changed soon after our second visit. The service managed medicines appropriately and involved people in planning any changes.

People were involved in assessments of their needs. Staff reviewed assessments taking account of people’s communication, personal care and health needs. Care delivered by the service was not always based on best practice, but staff worked with all external agencies involved in people’s care for the best outcomes, and smooth transitions when moving services. People had enough to eat and drink to stay healthy. The service monitored people’s health to support healthy living. However, people were not always supported to take part in social and stimulating activity that met their needs. Staff made sure people understood their care and treatment to enable them to give informed consent. Staff took decisions in people’s best interests where they had been assessed as lacking capacity to do so.

The service did not always treat people as individuals and staff did not always respond to people in a timely way. However, people were treated with kindness and compassion. Staff protected people’s privacy and dignity and people had a choice in their care and were encouraged to maintain relationships with family and friends. The provider supported staff wellbeing.

People were involved in decisions about their care. Staff provided information people could understand. People knew how to give feedback and were confident the provider took it seriously. However, the provider and service had not always acted to improve the quality of the service. The service was easy to access and worked to eliminate discrimination. People received fair and equal care and treatment. Staff worked to reduce health and care inequalities through training and feedback. People were involved in planning their care and understood options around choosing to withdraw or not receive care.

The service did not have a clear vision or strategy that staff or people were aware of. However, their culture was based on listening, and learning, and trust was improving. Leaders were visible and supportive, helping staff develop in their roles. However, leadership knowledge of how to support people, particularly with dementia, was not always thorough. Staff felt supported to give feedback and were treated equally, free from bullying or harassment. People with protected characteristics felt supported. Staff understood their roles and responsibilities. Managers worked with the local community to deliver the best possible care but were not always able to get the information they needed from other services.