- Care home
The Old School House Care Home
Assessment report published 5 November 2025
Contents
Ratings
Our view of the service
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.
People's experience of this service
People and those important to them were not always positive about the experience of living in the Old School House Care Home. But people said they felt safe and cared for. A relative said, “Yes, my aunty is well looked after and safe – she is happy here.”
Staff were described as kind, respectful, and caring. One person told us, “Yes, the staff are lovely and caring.” People said they did not always have enough contact with staff because they were busy responding to call bells and supporting people with dementia.
We found care was delivered to an acceptable standard. One relative said “Yes, she does (get the care she needs). Lots of family members visit her and we are all happy with her care.”
While people expressed general satisfaction with the cleanliness of their rooms, our assessment found the cleanliness and maintenance of the building and equipment did not meet expected standards.
We heard from people who said they felt bored and were not supported to have fulfilled lives. They felt not enough was done with them to support their wellbeing. One person told us, “There’s not a lot to do and I get bored sometimes.” Another person told us, “Yes, they look after me. It’s a long day just sitting, doing nothing – I get bored. There’s a lot of people asleep here – probably bored”.
One person said, “Yes, they know me well and what I like.” People said the quality of the food served varied in quality and in the amount of choice.
While people expressed general satisfaction with the management of the service, our assessment found issues to address in the quality of the service delivery. Management oversight of the service had not delivered a service that met expected standards. However, one person’s relative told us they were confident the management team would respond appropriately to any concerns they might have. They said, “Yes, I know the manager and team leaders."