- Care home
The Headington Care Home
Assessment report published 24 June 2026
Contents
Ratings
Our view of the service
Date of inspection: 07 April 2026 to 08 May 2026.
The Headington Care Home is a care home providing nursing and personal care and support to 56 people. The service supported some people on a short stay basis following discharge from hospital and were waiting for other long-term placements to become available, or return home with care.
The provider was previously registered under a different provider. This was the first inspection of the service under the new provider.
The service was in breach of regulations in relation to Safe Care and Treatment, Safeguarding and Good governance. We have asked the provider for an action plan in response to the concerns found at this inspection.
People were at increased risk of infection or ill health due to poor environmental hygiene.
The provider did not always protect people from the risk of abuse or harm. Although incidents and safety events were investigated, these processes were not consistently effective.
Recruitment processes were robust, however, staffing levels were not always sufficient to meet people’s needs safely and consistently. Staff did not always have sufficient time to meaningfully interact with people.
Risk assessments and care plans were in place but did not always include clear guidance for staff about how to manage risks or deliver safe care. Guidance was not consistently person‑centred and did not always reflect people and their relative’s views. When people were receiving short‑term care, the provider had failed to ensure comprehensive care plans were in place that reflected input from relevant professionals.
Whilst we observed some activities taking place during the inspection, records did not always evidence people had access to a wide range of meaningful activities, outings and daily stimulation. The provider carried out regular audits; however, they did not identify concerns we found during the inspection. The service did not act on concerns identified around cleanliness in previous audits.
Staff were kind and compassionate. They respected people’s rights related to consent and mental capacity. Staff had received relevant training to deliver care, promoted people’s independence, and supported people to access different healthcare services as needed. The provider was responsive to people’s needs.
The provider offered a range of opportunities for people, their relatives and staff to give feedback, however, people and their relatives did not always feel listened to or involved in their care.
When incidents or accidents occurred, lessons learnt were communicated with staff. However, this practice was not fully embedded.
The provider was responsive to feedback we provided during the inspection.
People's experience of this service
People we spoke with consistently told us staffing levels were not sufficient. Comments included, “They seemed to be thin on the ground staff wise,” and “There are too few, they are stretched to the limits.”
People told us they felt isolated and did not always receive daily stimulation. Comments included, “I feel that I am stuck here, no one comes to see me, I am aware that I am deteriorating but I feel lonely”, and “I am sort of cut off… I would like more people to come in and talk to me.”
Relatives gave us mixed feedback regarding staffing levels. Comments included, “The home do not appear to have any befrienders that can speak with residents”, “Staff numbers clearly vary from time to time”, and “Sometimes there are no staff in the lounge, but then other times there are 2 staff there.”
People told us they felt safe, however not all relatives agreed. We identified concerns around people’s safety in relation to safeguarding, environmental safety, infection prevention and control, and medicines management.
Relatives described working constructively with the provider to resolve concerns about people’s care. Comments included, “We have worked hard with the home on [person’s care needs] …generally things are a lot better now” and, “There were some initial difficulties… we persevered and as soon as we contacted [provider] this [change] was provided.”
People and their relatives knew who the management team were, and they spoke positively about them. People and their relatives told us they could provide feedback, however, did not always feel listened to. Comments included, “My [relative] was pleased that the [registered] manager thanked [them] for raising issues with [registered manager], saying that many families do not and it helps me when they do,” and “The [registered] manager is good. We always receive a welcome and can go to [their] office."
Some people could not directly tell us about their experience. We used a structured observation tool to assess whether they received good care. This approach showed people were not always listened to.