- Care home
Hope Valley Nursing Home
Assessment report published 31 October 2025
Contents
Ratings
Our view of the service
Date of assessment: 15 September to 22 September 2025. The service is a nursing home providing support to adults, some of whom live with dementia and/or a physical disability. The service is registered to support up to 42 people. At the time of our inspection, 18 people were living at the service.
This assessment was carried out in response to information of concern received.
The provider was in breach of 3 legal regulations relating to good governance, safe care and treatment, staff training and person-centred care at the service.
The provider did not have a proactive learning culture. Accidents, incidents and falls were not robustly reviewed or analysed to improve safety. This also meant safeguarding concerns were not always promptly identified. Risk assessments identified and assessed risks to people but required more timely reviews as people’s needs changed. Medicines were not safely managed, and we found discrepancies in medicine stock during our first site visit which meant we could not be assured medicine was always administered as prescribed. Staff were not suitably trained to carry out their roles safely. Whilst we observed safe staffing levels, we received mixed feedback on staffing levels at the service.
Improvements were required to ensure people, and those important to them, were involved in the care planning process. Records did not always demonstrate care was delivered consistently in line with assessed needs. Clinical monitoring of health and well-being was not always effective. Care plans required further improvement to ensure they were fully person-centred. End of life care planning was insufficient. We identified some limited accessibility within the service such as poor lighting and signage, however people had access to walking aids.
Governance systems were not effective at identifying risks to safety and quality of care. The provider failed to follow their own policies to ensure a safe and effective service. The provider worked with relevant stakeholders to drive improvement. However actions were often reactive rather than proactive due to lack of own internal quality assurance systems. Although the provider took some immediate actions following our first site visit, such as completing a full medicine stock count, many planned improvements had not yet been embedded at the time of our inspection. As a result, we were unable to evaluate the effectiveness of these actions.
People were supported to access relevant healthcare professional support, and the provider followed the principles of the Mental Capacity Act (2005). Staff were observed to be responsive to requests for support during our inspection, although systems to monitor responsiveness were lacking. Staff felt supported in their roles and the provider promoted staff well-being. The provider was working to promote an inclusive culture within the workforce.
In instances where CQC has begun a process of regulatory action, we may publish this information on our website after any representations and/or appeals have been concluded, if the action has been taken forward.
We have asked the provider for an action plan in response to the concerns found at this assessment.
People's experience of this service
Overall people felt safe using the service. However, some relatives raised concerns about staffing levels and reliance on agency staff. Not all relatives felt fully informed when their loved ones were involved in an accident or incident, with some raising concerns about staff response to unexplained injuries. Some people and relatives felt involved in care planning, but many were not aware of care plans or reviewed. People and relatives felt staff and leaders were approachable, but felt communication could improve within the service.
We received positive feedback on how the provider aided a smooth transition for those moving into the service, and one person was being supported to move onto more independent living. People and relatives described staff as kind and respectful. Some relatives shared examples of specific staff and their caring and considerate approach. We received positive feedback on the activities co-ordinator, and the various activities available for people to get involved in. People were supported to maintain relationships with those important to them. People felt supported to understand and ensure appropriate funding was in place for their needs. There were opportunities for people and relatives to feedback, such as meetings and surveys.