Temple Ewell Nursing Home

On this page

• Overview
• Person-centred Care
• Care provision, Integration and continuity
• Providing Information
• Listening to and involving people
• Equity in access
• Equity in experiences and outcomes
• Planning for the future

Responsive – this means we looked for evidence that the provider met people’s needs.At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has changed to requires improvement. This meant services were not planned or delivered in ways that met people’s needs.

The service was in breach of legal regulation in relation to person centre care.

This service scored 54 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

The provider did not always make sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they did not always work in partnership with people, to decide how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs. People’s care plans did not always contain personalised details about their care, preferences and choices. When people were unable to verbalise their choices, staff had not responded to their actions. For example, when a person removed their lap belt regularly and was found on the floor. Staff had not considered if the person did not want the lap belt as they kept removing it or how to manage their safety if the lap belt was not in place. Care plans had been signed by staff as being reviewed monthly, however, there was no evidence people, or their relatives had been involved. The reviews had not identified changes in people’s needs, for example, a person had developed a pressure area on their sacrum in December 2025. The person’s care plan had not been changed to reflect this, or the guidance for staff to mitigate any further wounds developing.

People told us, staff supported them and knew them well. Relatives told us they had not been involved in reviewing or writing care plans but believed staff supported their family member in the way they preferred.

There were some shortfalls in how the provider understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was not always joined-up, flexible or supportive of choice and continuity. The registered manager had not recognised the specific support people with autism and learning disabilities required. They had not made sure staff had understood these needs and could plan people’s support appropriately.Care plans for people living with autism had not been developed with guidance for staff to support people’s emotional needs for over a year after they were admitted. Specific behaviour care plans had not been developed until February 2026 even though people had been admitted in 2024.At the staff meeting in April 2026, staff raised concerns about verbal abuse from people and how this should be managed, the discussion had led staff to ask for additional training to help them understand people’s needs as they were not confident to manage autism. Due to people’s complex autism needs, inspectors did not speak with them to find out their views, as new people were known to cause them distress.

People and relatives told us, they were supported by a consistent and stable group of staff. They thought staff knew them well and they could ask them for support when they needed it.

The provider did not always supply appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs. Some information was provided in easy read form, but these were not always accessible to people. There was an easy read complaints policy which was available in reception, and which was available in people’s welcome pack. However, safeguarding information was only available in reception, which people who stayed in their rooms would not have access to.

People were not offered pictures of what was available for their meals to help them make decisions. The registered manager told us they had photographs but had not printed them out.

The provider made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. Staff did not always involve people in decisions about their care or tell them what had changed as a result. People and their relatives were invited to regular meetings. The meetings discussed what was happening within the service, when suggestions had been made, these had been noted within the meetings minutes, but no action had taken place. The registered manager had visited people to find out if they had suggestions or concerns.

Relatives were asked to complete quality assurance surveys monthly, based around an element of the service. The results were analysed and an action plan developed; there were some records of action taken but the registered manager had responded to the individual rather than considering improvements for everyone.

People and relatives told us they knew how to raise concerns and complaints and were confident these would be dealt with quickly. We reviewed the complaints received and found the registered manager had followed the provider’s policy when investigating the complaint.

The provider did not always make sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. There was limited signage around the building to help people find their way. The registered manager told us, most people could not mobilise independently, and they had not thought it necessary. However, they had not considered that people may like to know where they were going when being assisted by staff or visitors.

Staff and leaders did not always actively listen to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes. This meant people’s care was not always tailored in response to this. People’s care plans did not always contain details about people’s protected characteristics such as spiritual needs or autism. Staff had not recognised how younger people with a learning disability and autism would be affected by living in an older person care home.

People were not always supported to plan for important life changes, so they could have enough time to make informed decisions about their future. People who were living with autism and learning disability, there was no information about their plans such as where they wanted to live permanently. Staff had not discussed with them what their long term goal was including what support they wanted and where they wanted to live.

People were asked about their end of life plans, and these had been recorded in their care plans. Staff had recorded when people wished to go to hospital and to be resuscitated.