- Care home
Neale Court
Assessment report published 4 August 2026
Contents
Ratings
Our view of the service
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.
People's experience of this service
We used a combination of speaking with people and their relatives, observing care and picture cards to gather people’s views about their experiences of living at Neale Court.
People told us they had a positive experience living at Neale Court. They told us staff treated them with kindness and they felt safe. One person said, “At the moment as far as I am concerned, I am happy.” Another person said, “The care is good, the staff are excellent. Overall, it is a good place, and it is spotlessly clean.” A third person told us, “It’s nicely decorated and the staff are brilliant. They are good at how they speak to you and nothing is too much trouble. They couldn’t do anything better.”
People were supported to maintain important relationships and where possible, pursue their interests such as gardening or cooking. Staff knew people well and understood their preferences and life histories. People were encouraged to make choices and maintain preferred routines, such as meals at times that suited them, receiving daily newspapers and visiting with relatives and friends. One person told us, “I went out with friends yesterday and got back late, my meal was still available if I wanted it, but I had eaten out.”
People were involved in decisions about their care and support. Reviews were taking place and people and relatives were fully involved. Staff respected people's preferences. People chose how to spend their time and were encouraged to take part in events at the service, although most people preferred to chat amongst themselves or spend time alone. The registered manager was implementing programs to support more meaningful engagement.
Support was flexible but people told us they would like to spend more time going for walks or visiting shops and local cafes. One person said, “I like to go out in the garden and go out for the day somewhere and look around the shops.”
We observed one person experience a delay when pressing their call bell for support to use the bathroom. However, everyone else we spoke with told us staff arrived very quickly when called and audits supported this. One person said, “I have a call bell and they come pretty quickly.” Another person told us, “They are always ready to help you when you need it, you never have to wait long.”
Staff treated people with dignity and respect. One person said, “The staff are very caring, they speak to me politely.” Another person told us, “Staff are lovely, they never just walk past you but always stop and say hello.” Privacy was protected during personal care and when discussing sensitive matters. A person told us, “They help me with a wash when I need it and they are very good at covering me up.” People were given the choice of having a key to lock their bedroom doors to promote safety and privacy. A person told us, “I like my bedroom door shut but not locked and have never had anyone wander in.” This view was echoed by other people we spoke with.
Staff took time to communicate with people in ways they understood and sought consent before providing support. Interactions were caring and compassionate and people told us staff were kind and caring. We observed staff being patient and encouraging when supporting with meals or using equipment to help move people to other chairs. Staff supported people to feel safe and listened to. One person told us, “I do feel safe here. They are always ready to give you a little chat and just put you at ease.”
Staff promoted independence and supported people to make their own decisions wherever possible. People told us they were capable of speaking for themselves. Restrictions were minimised and people's rights were respected. People were enabled to have as much freedom and control as possible while remaining safe. One person said, “I feel safe because it is a locked building and I have never had anyone wander into my room.” Another person explained how they had agreed to have staff support them when going into the community as they understood the risks to their safety and needed support to reduce the risk of falling.