During an assessment under our new approach
Our view of the service
About the service
The service is a care home without nursing spread over 2 floors in a purpose-built building which includes en-suite bedrooms and shared living areas such as an open plan dining room and lounge on each floor. The people living at the service, shared gardens which were fully accessible, a hairdresser salon and entertainment room. The service can support up to 46 people; there were 40 people using the service at the time of the inspection.
Who the service is for
This is a specialist service for people living with dementia and older people, some of whom had physical disabilities.
Key findings
We carried out this assessment on 6 July 2026. This service was previously rated as good. We carried out this assessment to confirm whether the rating of good remains accurate. This report does not provide detailed information on areas where we found practice continues to meet a good standard. Instead, our findings focus on any areas where the service needs to improve or where we found exceptional practice.
People continued to receive safe, effective, caring, responsive and well led support. A visiting professional told us, “I can confirm that the standard of care and professionalism the staff members have shown to [people] has been to a high standard. Each visit I always notice how the home is always clean and tidy, welcoming and nothing is too much trouble for a member of staff when attending to [people] or assisting myself when required.”
There were enough staff to meet people's needs safely and effective systems helped protect people from harm. Although records to support staff development missed opportunities to demonstrate meaningful discussion. Risks were assessed and regularly reviewed and gaps in staff knowledge for managing risks to people was being further developed. Medicines were managed safely and people lived in a safe and well-maintained environment.
People's preferences and communication requirements were understood and one person used cue cards to aid their speech and understanding. Staff received appropriate training and support to carry out their roles effectively and new training had recently been introduced to better understand ways of supporting people who were confused or distressed or living with dementia.
People were supported to maintain their health and wellbeing and care reflected current best practice. Professionals gave positive feedback about their working relationship with the staff and management. One professional told us, “Communication with the home has been excellent, and the staff are approachable, proactive, and work collaboratively. The team are quick to address any queries or issues that arise and demonstrate a genuine commitment to [people’s] wellbeing. In particular, the registered manager and deputy manager have always been exceptionally responsive, helpful, and supportive.”
People can only be deprived of their liberty to receive care and treatment with appropriate legal authority. In care homes, this can be done through a procedure called the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS), which is part of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). We checked whether the service was working within the principles of the MCA and how they managed DoLS within the service. We found that staff and management worked within the principles of the MCA. DoLS authorisations were appropriately applied for and overseen. People were not subject to unlawful or excessive restrictions they had choice, control and freedom over their lives. However, how assessments were recorded did not show the evidence of people’s involvement.
People were treated with kindness and respect by staff who knew them well. They were involved in decisions about their care and support and received care that reflected their wishes and preferences. People were encouraged to maintain their independence and remain involved in activities that were important to them. New opportunities for meaningful engagement were being developed to enhance people's wellbeing and quality of life. However, we found people’s dignity was not always upheld in areas such as mealtime equipment and the registered manager was making improvements to change this.
Despite some areas still in development, people continued to receive person centred care that reflected their wishes and preferences. Care plans provided clear guidance for staff and were reviewed regularly. People were supported to maintain important relationships and take part in meaningful activities. Feedback from people and their relatives was used to improve the service and effective systems were in place to respond to concerns and complaints. Where appropriate, future wishes and end of life preferences were discussed and recorded.
The provider had a positive culture focused on achieving good outcomes for people. Leaders were approachable and committed to continuous improvement. One professional told us, “I have nothing but praise for the Neale Court team and the [registered manager] in particular. They are a proactive, caring and efficient [registered} manager who is constantly striving to achieve the best standard of care for her residents. The [registered manager] and I have built an excellent working relationship to ensure open lines of contact should they need support from us.” Another professional said, “The standard of care offered by Neale Court is exceptional. The care home staff prioritise patients’ needs and care above all else. They are hugely proactive in ensuring [people] and their relatives are comfortable and well looked after.” Effective governance arrangements provided oversight of quality and safety. Feedback, audits and learning helped drive improvement and supported the delivery of high-quality care.