- Care home
Magnolia House
Assessment report published 19 October 2026
Contents
Ratings
Our view of the service
Overall service commentary (2000)
This was the first assessment for this service since it’s registration under the new provider and was prompted due to concerns raised in relation to the provision of person-centred care. At the time of the assessment 31 people were living at Magnolia House.
People received safe care and staff managed risks safely, responsively and effectively. People’s needs were assessed before and after they moved into the home. This was used as the basis for personalised care plans to ensure care supported people’s preferences and wellbeing. People had detailed individual care plans and risk assessments in place that guided staff to deliver safe care.
Systems were in place to identify and manage risks. Accidents and incidents were investigated and reviewed to reduce recurrence. Safeguarding arrangements were effective, and staff understood how to recognise and report abuse. Mental capacity assessments, best-interest decisions and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards applications were completed where required, protecting people’s rights.
Staffing levels reflected people’s assessed needs and were reviewed regularly. People, relatives and staff spoke positively about recent increases in staffing levels. During the assessment, staff were available and engaged with people. Staff received appropriate training, supervision, competency assessments and appraisals. Safe recruitment procedures were followed.
People were supported to eat and drink well and medicines were managed safely. Most areas of the home were clean and staff used personal protective equipment appropriately. Where shortfalls were identified in relation to the environment this had been identified by the provider and plans were in place to address these shortfalls.
The management team was visible, approachable and committed to high-quality care. People, relatives and staff described managers as responsive and effective. Governance arrangements included audits of medicines, staffing, care records and the environment. Identified shortfalls were recorded in a detailed improvement plan. Feedback from people, relatives, staff and other stakeholders was gathered, analysed and acted upon.
Systems were in place that allowed people, relatives and staff to speak up and have their voices heard. The provider had good governance systems in place to ensure any improvements required were identified and actioned. Staff felt the management team were open and approachable, and there were regular opportunities for staff and management to discuss incidents or areas for improvement within the service to ensure lessons were learnt.
People's experience of this service
People experienced kind, respectful and person-centred care. They and their relatives described staff as caring, helpful and dedicated. Staff knew people well and understood their routines, preferences, communication needs and what was important to them. This enabled care to reflect individual identity, culture, faith, interests and lifestyle choices.
People had choice and control over their daily lives. Staff respected decisions about when people got up, where they spent their time and how they wished to receive support. Care plans clearly recorded what people could do independently and where assistance was needed. Staff encouraged people to maintain skills, mobility and confidence without placing them at unnecessary risk.
Care had a positive impact on people’s health and wellbeing. Staff supported nutrition, hydration, oral health, emotional wellbeing and healthy lifestyle choices. Most people were satisfied with the food provided, and a range of physical and social activities promoted engagement and wellbeing. Relatives described improvements in people’s mobility, mental health, confidence and levels of confusion after moving to the service.
People’s rights were respected. Staff sought consent, supported people to make choices and followed lawful decision-making processes when a person lacked capacity. People and relatives were asked for their views through conversations and care reviews, and they felt listened to. Staff were visible, accessible and responded promptly, providing reassurance when needed. Overall, the care provided enabled people to feel secure, included and accepted, maintain meaningful independence and receive timely support tailored to their individual needs.